|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-04-09 16:40:39
[In case my message in French is too difficult to understand, an English version follows...
Mr. Azizou, I apologize for my very poor command of French but I would like to ask three question and also comment on a point.
COMMENT:
I would also like to make an observation about your mention of the Beirut Peace Plan (March 2002) and its offer of recognition of Israel. You say that all Arab states ratified it and that it was proposed (by Prince Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud) the First Deputy Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia. Your argument is that the Americans dismiss such peace offerings "by habit".
Please allow me to offer a more plausible reason for the rejection of such offers.
It is my understanding that the governments of most Arab states are regarded as "apostate" by the militant Imans, Mullahs and other extremist religious leaders in the Arab states (as well as by Al Qaeda). This means Islamic activists reject the moral power of their own political leaders. Although the leaders of Arab states wield military, police and political powers, they hold no moral power over Islamic militants. Israel is not at war with these Arab states. It is at war with Palestinian and Islamic militants and the organizations that support their activities. It is the Islamic religion leaders and not the Arab politicians who fan the flames of Jihad.
Since Arab leaders have no moral authority over their militants, such peace offerings are meaningless to Israel and Washington. These agreements only put all the onus on Israel and Washington to deliver concessions while the Arab states can and would do little to hold back their militants. This was the same problem Israel had with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.
The Arab states seem to be their own worst enemies. You only have to look at Saudi Arabia. The current kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the result of Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi warriors (and the British). The current Saudi royal family is completely at odds with the fundamentalist nature of the Wahhabist Islamic doctrine that they unwittingly condone in their own society. The Saudi government does not have the support of their own people. In 1979, the Saudi royal family turned to the West for help when Islamic militants took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Ironically, it was actually élite French paratroopers who brutally put down the uprising. Where was the Arab League (formed in 1945) in all this? Why do you think bin Laden selected so many Saudis for 9/11?
If fact, Saudi Arabia has a habit of turning to the West for help whenever messy internal crises threaten the survival of the Saudi royal family.
It has been said by experts that the most immediate threat posed by Islamic militants is not so much against the West but against decrepit Arab governments. This crisis seems to be more about the failure within Arab societies than it is about American aggression.
QUESTION 1:
Normally it is enough for me to acknowledge that we are Canadians discussing issues that affect our country's foreign policies. However, since you seem to say you are not Canadian may I ask which country you are a citizen of?
QUESTION 2:
Finally, from your usage of French and the name you use on this forum I assume you may come from one of the countries of the Maghreb. What do you think of the GIA and FIS terrorist groups and their methods?
QUESTION 3:
What do think of Wahhabism and the teachings of Sayyid Qutb?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
