American and Israeli Stupidity

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

20 March 2009

It is often repeated in Arab media, and by the pens of many Arab writers, that the Americans, the Israelis, and Westerners in general are extremely intelligent, that their calculations are precise, and that they never undertake an action without thorough scientific study beforehand. Sometimes they are surrounded by such an aura of exemplariness that one comes to think the scientific mind exists only in the West and Israel, and that other nations, Arabs especially, are mentally inferior before these titans. This idea has also extended to their intelligence capabilities and their ability to gather information about others, to the point where it seems as though they know what a person whispers to his companion.

There is no dispute that the people of the West and Israel have developed the scientific mind, and have adopted the scientific method and free thought as the best paths to reaching the truth; it is no wonder they have made enormous scientific and technical leaps, expanded their influence on a global scale, and secured many of their interests. This is beyond denial. But it does not mean that their wishes or illusions never overtake their minds — sometimes they undertake actions that produce results opposite to what they desire. I demonstrate this below through some experiences in the Arab-Islamic region.

At the Arab level

The most important feature of United States and Israeli policy with regard to the Arabs is their intense concern with preserving political stability, because most of the ruling regimes possess no political independence and do not seek to achieve it. Most regimes were either installed by Western colonialism and are now under American patronage, or are militarily protected by the Americans, or are financed by Westerners in general. Only America and Israel work clearly to manufacture instability in the small number of Arab states that partially rebel against their policies, and modestly try to change conditions in the region. In this regard, it is possible to draw broad outlines of their policy that inevitably turn their hopes into mere wishes:

Supporting despotism:

Both America and Israel know that the Arab regimes are despotic, and they publicize this fact against these regimes in various international forums, while Western politicians and their media constantly repeat that Israel is the only democratic state in the region. The two states work deliberately and with premeditation to preserve Arab despotism, because it alone is what subjugates the Arab nation and its capabilities to them. The Arab regimes exchange interests with America and Israel: the regimes want to remain in power, and Israel and America want domination, the plundering of resources, and keeping the Arabs weak and backward. At the same time, publicizing the regimes’ faults serves to polish Israel’s image before the Western public, and keeps the Arab regimes under the weight of a sense of inferiority.

This, in itself, incites the Arab street against the West in general and against America and Israel. States that call themselves civilized speak of democracy and human rights, yet they support the despotism, backwardness, and weakness embodied by the regimes. They call for free and fair elections, but they say nothing about election fraud in a number of Arab countries, and remain silent on backward electoral laws designed solely to guarantee the victory of the ruling political faction, and they reject election results when they do not suit their mood, as they did in Algeria and Palestine. Awareness of this is accumulating, and in the end the Arab regimes will pay the price, along with those allied with them — America and Israel foremost.

Debasing the regimes

Arabs are perhaps the least respected people in the world, and the most exposed to insults and defeats. The reason is that Westerners insist on keeping the Arab regimes weak so that they never think of freedom, or of avenging a violated honor, a desecrated land, or a trampled dignity — and they do not hesitate to strike any Arab regime that gathers strength and begins to preach the nation’s deliverance from the colonizers’ yoke. Eritrea violated the sanctity of Arab land in Yemen, as did Ethiopia in Somalia. As for America, it sent its forces into Lebanon in 1958 and in 1983, struck Libya, Sudan, and groups on Yemeni soil, occupied Iraq, and landed its forces in Najd, al-Dahna, Kuwait, Qatar, the Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, and so on. This is in addition to the sieges periodically imposed on Arab states.

Are such regimes ultimately capable of continuing to serve Israel and America without obstacles? Most Arab regimes are comfortable with the services they provide, but they often find themselves in a difficult position because they face a growing Arab awareness. It is true that practical awareness has not yet developed to the point of posing a real danger to the regimes, but theoretical awareness of the true nature of the regimes grows day by day, and Israel and America help this along through their two policies, which pay no attention to the importance of preserving some dignity for those who provide them services.

The impasse of the Palestinian cause

In the past, the Arab regimes did not care much about the deterioration afflicting the Palestinian cause, but they began to feel the heat of the situation after Arab resistance developed and began achieving accomplishments, or at least holding firm against Israel. Over the years, these regimes tried to achieve something for the Palestinians and failed utterly, both in terms of rights and in terms of stopping Israel’s measures to Judaize the land occupied in 1967. The 2002 summit produced a feeble initiative, perfectly matching the feebleness of the regimes, yet Israel refused even to discuss it.

The Arab regimes made very large concessions regarding the cause — some recognized Israel, some normalized relations with it — and despite that, Israel and America refused to give these regimes anything that would preserve some of their face. At certain stages the Arab street sank to a sharp decline in morale, to the point that the voices calling for Arab dignity fell silent, and the regimes could have gotten away with passing any feeble settlement of the cause. But Israel and America insisted on their position, which gives the Palestinian people only a crust of bread in exchange for their national rights.

At the Palestinian level

Israel and America had an opportunity to settle the Palestinian cause after 1982, but they preferred to erase the cause rather than settle it. Arafat made concessions in the 1980s, such as renouncing terrorism and recognizing Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, but he received nothing in return except the American ambassador in Tunis sitting down with a representative of the PLO. The Oslo Accord was signed, but America and Israel offered nothing but salaries in exchange for Palestinians carrying out security tasks for the benefit of Israeli security. The confiscation of land, settlement building, arrest, torture, and killing all continued, with not the slightest concern for embarrassing their Palestinian partners before their own people.

Israel and America never tried to build a good image for their partners, and the two states were comfortable with the corruption and security breakdown that prevailed in the West Bank and Gaza, as though they were betting that the Palestinian people’s demand would in the future become simply seeking a solution to their problems from Israel alone. Israel understood that an agreement with it — particularly regarding security coordination — could not be carried out by respectable Palestinians, but only by fallen Palestinians ready to sell themselves for spoils and pleasures. That is why it extended to the Palestinian Authority a rope of tyranny over the people, so that internal Palestinian trust would disappear and be replaced by trust in the occupier and colonizer.

Israel was presented with an opportunity to liquidate the Palestinian cause, and it could have offered the Palestinian Authority something with which to argue its case before its people, or to silence its opponents somewhat, but it preferred to deal with people stripped bare, unable to cover any part of their nakedness. Israel was not seeking a partial surrender; it wanted a surrender accompanied by humiliating prostration.

At the Iraqi level

Saddam Hussein constituted a great obsession for Israel and America, and the two states insisted on getting rid of him. Now, however, the two states, along with many Arab states, are crying out against the growing Iranian influence in Iraq. They besieged Iraq, denied it food and medicine, bombed its facilities, and finally mobilized armies to depose Saddam. And the result was not bouquets of welcome for the American soldiers, but bullets in their chests.

At the Islamic level

America lost its balance after the bombings of 11 September 2001, and rushed into a violent campaign against Muslims in general. America had not been fond of Muslims even before that, and it, along with Israel, had deliberately worked to defame Islam through the behavior of some religious individuals and certain texts that lend themselves to inflammatory interpretations. America and the chorus that applauded it did not reckon that they were making enemies of more than a billion Muslims, despite the support some Muslims gave them. They preferred to make enemies of people rather than to pause, reflect, and think calmly. That billion was enough to produce thousands of provocateurs who see jihad against America as a religious duty.

The war on so-called terrorism was waged with continuous Israeli encouragement, and it dragged a number of Islamic states into supporting it, Pakistan foremost among them. America could have followed several approaches other than mobilization and war, but it imagined that peoples were merely herds of cowardly cattle, and that its wars would not drag on.

A losing harvest

America did not win its wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and it opened another front against itself in Pakistan. The Taliban still exists, and is growing stronger; al-Qaeda is still operating, and its leadership remains intact. As for Israel, it failed its Arab friends and its Palestinian partners, and had to wage two failed wars against the Lebanese and Palestinian resistances. The resistance is gaining momentum and support on the Arab scene; it is strong, resilient, and growing stronger, while the Arab regimes feel the ground shaking beneath them, not knowing how to manage their affairs.

The traditional balance of power in the region no longer holds, and Iran has managed to shake it powerfully through its scientific and technical progress and through its support for the resistance. Israel is no longer able to do what it used to do before, and neither is the United States. America roared against Iran and got nowhere; Israel threatened the resistance in Gaza but failed to break its back. Some in the West have recognized this shift in the balance of power, and have begun speaking of the need to talk with Hezbollah, and of the importance of forming a Palestinian unity government. Some have even begun speaking of the need to talk with what they call the moderate wing of the Taliban, and of the necessity of involving Tehran in security talks about Afghanistan.

What do Western experts say about how things are developing in the Arab-Islamic region? It is at least clear that many Western politicians, Americans and Israelis in particular, think with their horns and muscles, not with their minds. In bygone days, Arabs and Muslims were weak and insistent on remaining weak; now, however, some Arabs and Muslims have risen up, and I think that rethinking, especially on the American side, has become urgent. As for their scholars, they rarely bother to base themselves on information from popular sources, and remain captives of the media and of information provided by some so-called “liberals” from the region’s own sons, who are drawn to money at the expense of the truth.

Israel perhaps no longer has room to remedy the situation. Israel could have extended its lifespan by responding to the Arab regimes, but it must now confront a different breed of Arabs, marked by a firm creed, a strong will, and a rejection of its existence. Arab leaders can no longer get away with the concessions they were once able to get away with, and they are now preoccupied with searching for ways and means to avoid collapse before a new strategic advance sweeping the region. Arab and Palestinian leaders could once have been strengthened by being given something to make them bolder in suppressing their own peoples, but wisdom does not come to those who tyrannize the earth and spread corruption in it.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “غباء أمريكي وإسرائيلي” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.