When reason takes the back seat (Part 2): Terrorism and its significance in Middle Eastern Politics
By Hyppolite Pierre
Terrorism is a dreadful, ugly, and nasty way of doing politics. It is an anathema in this modern world, where people can use much more effective ways to make their voices heard. But when passion and frustration take over reason, there is no telling what evil they can unleash on humanity and decent, innocent people.
It is not a secret that Middle Eastern politics is extremely difficult, oftentimes irrational, and in many countries in the region, is the affair of clerics or their acolytes whose primary goal is to further the cause of Islamic fundamentalists oftentimes against the West. There are a few countries in the region which to varying degrees, have been able to effectively separate religion, their own faith, from politics. Despite the many differences in style of government (democratic vs. totalitarian), Arab countries like Syria starting with the late Hafez al-Asad and now his son, Bashar al-Asad; Egypt, Jordan, and now slowly but perhaps surely Iran, have dealt or are dealing with the West in ways that are promising.
Hafez al-Asad ruled over Syria for more than three decades with an iron fist, after a series of short-lived governments following its independence in 1946. He according to most, used terrorism as a political tool. But all along, he was in control over the faith of the country, rather than clerics. Despite his enmity towards the state of Israel, Asad had always managed to be in control and not let the religious factions overwhelm his government. Jordan with the late King Hussein and now his son King Abdallah II, always maintained contact with Israel and is one of the U.S. and Israel's best friends in the region to this day. Egypt became friendlier towards the Israeli after the Camp David accord during the Carter administration. Following that accord, militants from Islamic groups assassinated then president Anwar El Saddat in 1981. Still, Egypt now has an enduring relationship with the West and the United States despite their differences over the Palestinian issue. Iran which is still tightly controlled by the Ayatollahs, is increasingly becoming secular partly because of its past when the Shah (Palhevi) ruled over the country and tried to bring it closely to the West. Perhaps the experience of the Iranian people over the past 20 years or so, with the Church so involved in the affairs of the State, has convinced them that the best way to rule a country is when Church and State are not so closely intertwined.
The experiences of the West, especially the United States, with these countries compared to others in the region, show how much easier it can be to deal with States that base their politics on reason rather than religion. It is certain that the Palestinian issue is very important. It is certain as well that most Arab nations use it as a shield to hide them from dealing with the more serious issue of their governance over their people inside their own territory. What then is the most contentious issue in this particular debate?
