As Americans, we assume that we can wrap the “Muslim World” into a tight little package and then sit and discuss it with broad generalities. We also see something enlightened about finding shame in our own country’s history of relations in the Middle East and close our alliance with Israel. Both of these assertions are short sighted and miss a larger point.
Muslims are not all in lockstep on any position. Even the term “Muslim World” is simply too broad. How can a billion people all think in lock step, be universally offended or have the same points of pride and shame. Would it even make sense that a Doctor in Morocco would have a similar mentality to an Indonesian textile worker or a Pakistani investment banker? Each of these people speaks a different language and lives in very different countries with dramatically diverse cultures. For westerners to continue to use the term “Muslim World,” would be to persist in painting a large part of the world with too large of a brush.
What about Arab’s? Certainly the term “Arab Street” is more accurate. No, this term again is too broad. What would an Arab Christian, living in Egypt have similar sensibilities as an Iraqi Arab Druze, or Lebanese Arab Muslim? In a recent conversation with an Arab Iraqi, who was a traditional Sunni Muslim, but largely secular,
he expressed to me his frustration with the mentality of some from his own country in their position toward religious offense and other hotbed issues in the news. That’s right; Arabs have different positions in Iraq. There are differences in position from city to city, or even house to house. In some Arab families there are different positions in the within the household. Most importantly, just like everyone else, there are no fixed positions in the Arab world. So how can there be the position of the “Arab Street,” when one street has several different positions?
There is also no universal position in the Arab Middle East, or the Muslim Middle East toward Israel or Palestine. Some world leaders would like people to believe that there is a universal position towards Israel’s blockade of Gaza, or the announcement of proposed apartments in East Jerusalem.
In an article in one of the many left wing blogs throughout the net, I found one article praising the change in tone dealing with Israel. One such article read President Obama could change the U.S. stance on Israel because, unlike previous Presidents, Obama has no family ties to the region. One has to ask, why is it wrong to have any ties to Israel? Have the last decades of U.S. support for Israel been misspent, and has it come at the expense of other priorities? Israel is a fast growing economy with a vibrant future. For the U.S. to cast her future with a country that has one of only two established Democracies in the Middle East is sensible and is good for the future of both countries.
However, there is a large segment of the U.S. and Israeli populations left that believe peace will come to the U.S. and Israel if both countries will show shame for their positions towards Israel’s defense and growth. To believe that peace will come from a softer position is predicated on buying the “Muslim World” and the “Arab Street” myths. Does anyone truly believe that the resistance that U.S. troops face in Afghanistan or the piracy of western ships of the coast in Somalia, has anything to do with the IDF’s purchase of U.S. made helicopters? Has anyone asked why these proposed apartments are so bad and why does the administration spend it’s time focused on this? For many on the left “it’s about time” that the U.S. stops giving carte blanches to the Israeli’s. This brings us to two questions: (1) If this area is Israeli (which some including Netanyahu have suggested) then why is it wrong to build there? (2) If this area is part of a future Palestinian State then why couldn’t there be a small Jewish minority within that State? If question one is applicable then this situation is a “tempest in a teapot.” If question two is applicable then the Obama Administration is applying a double standard. In Israel there is a large Arab/Muslim minority, they are Israeli citizens and have representation in the parliament (Knesset). So either the Palestinian leadership won’t allow for a Jewish minority, or the situation is blown completely out of proportion by what seems to be a blame Israel first position by too many voices. These assertions are all based in the previous myths.
Why does the left continue to buy these universal myths and how do they believe that anyone benefits from perpetuating them?
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
