|
|
|
The Stakes: America in the Middle East |
|
reviewed by Zeynep Sengul |
|
|
Author: Shibley Telhami |
ISBN:
0-8133-4219-8 |
|
Publisher:
Westview Press |
Page:
224 |
|
Type:
Hardcover |
Price:
|
|
|
|
Review: |
It is easy to estimate that 9/11 attack was painful for all Americans, yet the importance of the fear that the attacks caused is greater than the pain. This book builds on this fear and other reflections which appeared after the attacks He tries to answer the basic questions that are of vital importance. He aims at finding out the nature of the terrorist threat assessing the role of Islam in Middle East terrorism.
Such kinds of questions are answered with the help of six divisions, each of which focus on a single topic.
In the first chapter, “Understanding the Terrorist threat”, the author discusses the nature of the threat the United States faced and explores the consequences of what had transpired for America’s relations with the Middle East. He claims that the United States has experienced many radical swings in its foreign policy in the autumn of 2001. He describes the security policy of the US giving five important differences of security policy between the United States and the rest of the world. The author challenges that the first difference results from the decision making process.
He says that much of the world empathized with America’s pain and supported its right on self defense in light of the horrific attacks but did not see the right of America to unilaterally define global terrorism beyond the immediate threat to its own soil.
The second difference is that The United States focused its effort in fighting terrorism on confronting the “supply side of terrorism” without equally addressing the “demand side”. The United States regarded terrorism as the product of organized groups that could be confronted and destroyed, without regard to their aims or to the reasons that they succeed in recruiting many willing members.
The third difference is that the way of the United States looking on terrorism. The United States regards terrorism as an ideology rather than an instrument. In the ensuing months, the Bush administration has been waging the global war on terrorism as if terrorism is a movement, an ideology, or a political coalition with little differentiation between cases. However, much of the world sees terrorism differently; as an instrument, not a movement. To reduce its occurrence, according to this approach, terrorism must be internationally delegitimized and the conditions under which it thrives minimized.
The fourth difference arises from the view of the role of states versus non-state actors. While the threat posed by Bin Laden was in part dependent on a sponsoring state, it is clear that al-Qaeda is a non-state organization that operates even in nations where it does not receive official support. The United States, State Department typically issues lists of terrorist groups and also of “the terrorist states”. This focus on confronting hostile states as a priority of the war on terrorism has not been equally shared in the broader international community because the attacks of 9/11 highlighted the vulnerability of states to non-state terrorism in the era of globalization.
The fifth difference is the public discourse. The public discourse in America has associated terrorism in the Middle East, especially the suicide bombings, with aspects of the Islamic religion, even as President Bush has been careful to reject this notion, whereas many around the world see both the motives and the means of Middle Eastern terrorism to be less about Islam than about politics. In the second chapter “Why do they hate us so much?” the author tries to examine the public discourses and perceptions of America in the world. He claims that while many governments around the world lent support for the American war in Afghanistan in its early stages, including even unfriendly states such as Iran, opposition to the war among the public was by no means limited to the Arab and Muslim world and was prevalent in the developing world, especially in the Latin America and Africa. He focuses on the historical overview. He compares the relationships of the Europeans and the America in terms of Middle East.
Whereas Europeans had long-standing connections with the Middle East, the United States was geographically far removed from that region. He claims that there is a pervasive resentment of the United States in Arab and Muslim countries, and this resentment is mostly related to American foreign policy. There is a gap between some core American values and those held by Arabs. To the author’s opinion, the intensity of resentment of the United States among Arabs and Muslims is higher than that in other regions. However, he claims that Al-Qaeda has a special case that requires its own explanation. Before that organization, resentment of the United States in the Middle East has not historically been translated into anti- American terrorism. Except for Al-Qaeda, the Middle East has not led other parts of the world in terrorist attacks against American targets.
In the third chapter, “Does Public Opinion in the Middle East Matter?”, the author analyses the responses of the publics in the Middle East. For instance, When Egypt and Israel came together at Camp David, Maryland, in September 1978 to negotiate the terms; there was a great amount of confrontation. The author claims that the authoritarian governments in the region are always able to shape public opinion, or at least to resist it when necessary, regardless of how intense public anger is. Yet, the writer also says that despite the record of stability of authoritarian governments in the region, there have also been marked episodes of consequential public opposition. Whatever the logic, the author defends the idea that President Sadat ultimately paid with his life for his courage.
The author thinks that the changing media also changes the role of the state. In the past, Arab governments have been able to limit the emotions of their publics by limiting their people’s exposure to painful pictures. With the media, the governments felt less secure. Globalization and public empowerment also shape the ideas in the region. He claims that although states have by no means lost their centrality, and although most will likely find new ways to deal with the challenges posed by globalization, there is little doubt that they face new challenges. Moreover, he maintains that in addition to political and economic sources for public anger, the issue is exacerbated by the Arab- Israeli.
In the fourth chapter, the author examines the role of the Arab-Israeli issue. He says that after American attacks, Usame bin Laden ended a speech intended to rally Arab and Muslim support by suggesting that his terrorism was motivated by the pain in Palestine. Yet, he and other many Islamists around the world viewed the nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Palestinian national movement in general, with distain, for they themselves sought a borderless Islamist world. He also states that ever since the creations of the state of Israel, Arab governments have often used the Palestinian issue for their own political ends, sometimes to mask internal problems. Yet, the Saudi and other Arab governments have increasingly understood the growing public anger in their countries over the Palestinian issue. The author maintains that the Palestinian issue is important because Palestinian refugees in the host countries such as Lebanon, Kuwait, and Jordan. To the author’s opinion, they caused problems in that country. He also assesses the Camp David II negotiations. He tries to find out what went wrong in Camp David or why the negotiations failed. He evaluates the consequences for the Middle East and for U.S foreign policy. The author points out that each side had a different vision of the negotiations. Since the Israelis were in control of the West Bank and Gaza, they saw every piece of land from which they offered to withdraw as an Israeli concession, as something they were “giving” to the Palestinians. Thus, the agreement was out of question. He also thinks that there was insufficient preparation for the Camp David meeting. He also discusses psychologies of weakness and insecurity. He says that to most Arabs, especially Palestinians, Israel is all too powerful.
It has repeatedly defeated combined Arab armies, therefore the fear is understandable. Yet the writer emphasizes that the Israelis also feel insecure. The horror of holocaust has much to do with it, yet the author underlines the history of Israel, seen through Israeli eyes, is also a factor. In the end, he mentions the role the United States to him, we should not underestimate the continued importance of U.S positions on the Arab- Israel issue in shaping perceptions of America not only in the Middle East but also in other parts of the world, especially Europe. He says that under the influence of the United States, there may be a compromise if Arabs and Israelis coexist peacefully.
In the fifth chapter, “The role of the Persian Gulf Region”, he examines the continuing importance of Gulf Oil. He also says that authoritarianism in the region prevails. He also says that although there are historical and domestic reasons for the continuation of authoritarianism in the region, foreign policy has also been a considerable factor in recent years. Still, the goal of achieving more democracy in the region is complex and challenging. Though the United States can play a role in a process of political reform in the region, no power can bring it about alone. In the region, much of the resentment of the United States is based on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has been a visible sore point in the U.S-Saudi relationship since the collapse of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. As recent surveys have indicated, most Saudis, like other Arabs, resent America for its policies, not its values, and they see the Palestinian issue as a central issue of contention.
In the sixth chapter, the author makes conclusions. He maintains that American interests in the Middle East will continue to be important in UNITED STATES policy into the next decade and beyond. The commitment to Israel binds America to the Middle East inescapable ways, and the continued importance of oil for the world economy, coupled with the region’s domination of the world’s oil reserves, means that the Middle East will remain strategically important to America. To sum up, the author comments on issues very critically, giving the historical background. It provides a well-reasoned, comprehensive analysis on the basic issues in the hot debates.
|
|
|
about book: |
|
Could the United States defeat Al-Qaeda but still lose the broader war on terrorism? In The Stakes: America and the Middle East, Shibley Telhami, one of America’s most in-demand commentators on the Middle East, provides a concise and penetrating analysis that explains Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the United States and shows why there is much reason for concern. In an insightful, passionate, yet balanced analysis, Telhami provides new perspectives on the collapse of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and the attending escalation of violence. He shows why the Arab-Israeli conflict remains central to the war on terrorism and to international stability, and considers American policy toward Iraq and the Persian Gulf. He demonstrates the need for political change in the region’s oil states and suggests how best to achieve it. The Stakes provides a well-reasoned, calm analysis that will be essential reading for anyone who wonders where America should go from here, amid the dangers and opportunities in the ever-volatile Middle East. |
|
| |
|
|
Being an
intellectual platform for social sciences, JTW contributes to
this area by promoting new publications in its Book Reviews
section. Publishers can send newly published books to be
reviewed to this section’s
editor. Or else, book reviews are
also welcomed by JTW.
For More Information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
