When reason takes the back seat (Part 3)
By Hyppolite Pierre<</p>
The contentious issue(s)
Is it power, or is it religion, or is it the Palestinian issue? At least for the purpose of this analysis, the issues can be brought together into just one block: it is a matter of power. The Middle East is a region that has been at odds with the West for a very long time. At first it seemed as though it was a game of power between the West (the US, its Western allies, and Israel) against the Eastern block of nations allied with the then Soviet Union. This perhaps partially explains why "Socialism" was such an attractive alternative to so-called Arab revolutionaries like Kadafi in Libya, Asad in Syria, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Soviet Union allied itself mostly with Arab nations, whereas Western industrialized allied themselves with the small but yet powerful young nation of Israel. What really proves that all along the basic issue was a matter of power, rather than strictly religion, is the fact that the then USSR was officially an atheist State, while the entire Arab world is known for its fervent devotion to the religion of Islam.
There is also however, the issue of frustration. In Africa for instance, as new nations were emerging in the 1960's taking their independence from colonial power in the West, some of their new leaders chose "Socialism", over their former master's capitalism. That pattern was evident from Kenya to Mozambique, to Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. In the Arab world, many young and some older intellectuals veered to the left of the political current according to the same pattern, to espouse a political philosophy that was challenging Western countries, especially the United States. Many rightfully say nowadays, that this has more to do with defiance and a search for political self-expression, than any truly different view of politics or economics. After all, the ways businesses are conducted in those countries are not or were not necessarily concurrent with the Soviet Union's or Mao's Chinese brand of Socialism.
The Palestinian issue, Palestinian, and Arab governments
The Palestinian issue was and still is, just one more element added to the equation of power that had made it even more complicated. Much has been said and done, for or against the cause of the Palestinians, a people somehow scattered around for the longest, from present day Jordan (a sizable portion of the Jordanian population is Palestinian), to the current territory of the State of Israel. All Arab nations at least pay lip service to their cause. Terrorism was, and many say is still, conducted in their names, or to benefit their cause.
Most poor Arabs espouse their cause, because the Palestinians represent to them the challenge that the West has laid onto their lap. They deal with it every day and even forget about the sad reality in their individual country from political repression, to lack of democracy, to corruption, and the relegation of women to the status of second-class citizens.
Only a few years after their establishment as a nation in the Middle East, the small State of Israel (barely the size of present day Haiti) was attacked from many different points by Arab nations like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. They were all defeated and thus the seizing of their territories by Israel the winner of that war, from the Golan Heights to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The cause for Palestine in Israel took then its most terrible blow. Eventually, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat took refuge in Algeria in Northern Africa, a Muslim country with its own difficult history with the West, precisely France, and resorted to terrorism. Passion became the most important element in the struggle. Islam in the Arab world became not just a religion but a tool for resistance against the West and the people of Israel where the vast majority of the people practice Judaism. With politics and religion now so closely intertwined, the entire region became deadly, frightening to the average individual of the West who was aware of the situation there.
What makes the Middle East such a difficult region, like a nuclear bomb lying-in-wait, is not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but many Arab governments themselves. They skillfully manipulate large majority of their population into believing that the West is not only a threat, but also the cause of their ills.
In Iran (known as Persia until 1935), the United States relationship with the Shah until his overthrow in 1979 somehow made it possible for conservative clerics like Ayatollah Khomeini, to have ruled over that country until his death. The United States was the "Great Satan", the enemy of Islam, the Arab people, and themselves Persians. Many nonconformist political thinkers started out believing that he, the Ayatollah, meant well, until he forced out of power and forced into exile back to France, the newly elected and more rational president of Iran Abulasan Banisadr, not even a year into the latter's presidency. Since then, the Iranian people have slowly but surely moved away from the rhetoric of religion in their politics, and have been electing into office more secular political leaders from their president to members of Parliament.
In Iraq, the United States supported Saddam Hussein for the longest, all throughout his war against Iran, and stood with him until he invaded Kuwait in 1990. He has since then been using conspiracy theories to justify the plight of his people, as well as using the Palestinian issue to "prove" the hatred of the U.S. and Israel against Arabs.
In Egypt, even though the government and the state apparatus are quite friendly with the United States and even Israel, a large majority of the Egyptian people feel quite uncomfortable with American policies in the Middle East. So, rather than zooming in more on their difficulty at home and trying to make government more transparent and accountable to the people, they focus their anger on Israel and their dealings with the Palestinian people who are Arabs like themselves. The same goes for some other big name Arab countries in the region. From Syria to Jordan to Saudi Arabia, the average citizen focuses not on the issues that directly affect their lives (all politics are local, or so we say in the West), but rather on the Palestinian issue. This is ideal for many of these governments which would otherwise have had to work towards changes within their own territorial parameter.
The biggest beneficiaries of the distorted focus are the Palestinian authority themselves. They are by most accounts a corrupt leadership. Their only worthiness to the Palestinian people is their negotiating experience with the different Israeli governments. One Palestinian writer and University Professor who is opposed to the PLO for many different reasons, Mr. Edward Said, gives sufficiently credible account of the institutionalized corruption in the Palestinian territories under Arafat. In a more rational world, and had the people in the Arab world been fully aware of the corrupt reality within the PLO's leadership, and learned to focus attention to the affairs in their own respective State or territory, they would have long ago realized who the real enemy or enemies are. It would have become clear to them that neither Israel, nor the West, nor the United States but in most cases their leaders and governments are where the real problems begin.
Unfortunately and to this day, most if not all governments in the Arab world make it easy for their people in the region to focus their attention on the wrong priority. They know that the day their people would focus on what is going on within their territory, their chances of staying in power would have been greatly reduced. Still, one must remember that the West and especially the United States, do have their role to play in transforming this region and making it more rational. We will debate that issue as we move along in this analysis.
Israel and the logic of hatred in the Arab world
It is at best a difficult issue to reckon with. The facts are on the other hand, that Israel is a State, a country with the right to exist. When one considers the reality on the ground and the historic facts, any argument that departs from that basic premise should be considered foolish and worthless. Still, it must be said that Israel is a major headache not for, but to the people in the Arab world. They feel as though it is a country that has been imposed on them, that it is a country that had been fabricated by the victors of the Second World War, out of sympathy for the Jewish people and in total disrespect for Arab nations. When one talks to Jews however, or Christians who read the Bible more often than the rest of us, they argue their case appropriately to demonstrate that Israel is the rightful land of the Jewish people. This is incidentally one of the causes of the apparent hatred towards the West, of the most fundamentalists adherents to the Islamic faith. Nevertheless as time goes by, everyone is slowly but surely coming to grips with this reality. Zionism for instance is no longer considered racist by the United Nations. Egypt has made peace with Israel as a result of the Camp David accord sponsored by Jimmy Carter, accord which incidentally had cost Anwar El Saddat the Egyptian president, his life in 1981. Jordan from the late King Hussein to the present King Abdallah II, has no difficulty with meeting overtly with Israeli leaders. Syria goes back and forth with negotiating a peace deal with Israel which would or will eventually make it possible for Syria to regain control over the Golan Heights that they lost after the war against Israel.
The problem with Israel is, that after the Oslo peace accord and the subsequent recognition by the PLO Chairman, Arafat, of Israel as a State with the right to exist, the Israeli architect of the peace deal Ytzhak Shamir, was assassinated by some right wing, fanatic bullets. When the Israeli people went to the polls subsequently to choose a new Prime Minister, they chose a camera savvy, passionate man from the Likud party, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, instead of the more experienced and thoughtful diplomat Shimon Peres. Netanyahu stalled the peace process, making more demands to the PLO than were required by Oslo, frustrated then president Clinton and even the Israeli media. When he finally got out of power and Ehud Barak from the Labor party replaced him, the damages were already done. Arab nationalism or rather Arab religious fervor and passion took over the minds of young and thoughtful Arabs. Barak was hesitant, and even a weak Prime Minister. The dreadful Ariel Sharon replaced him. Dreadful because of the controversies that surround the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in the early 1980's while Sharon was Minister of Defense, and the subsequent crimes committed there of which some have accused him of crime against humanity. Now, with all the so-called intifada in the Palestinian territories, and the many Palestinian death, most in the Arab world are upset and are once again resorting to the politics of terror as though it is their last resource, their only way to be heard. The root cause to the present difficulties as recent history suggests, may lie right onto Netanyahu's lap. He made it more difficult for his successors to negotiate peace with the PLO.
Resolving the issues: the dilemma in the Arab world
It is interesting to note that once Mr. Khatami became the elected leader of Iran in the fall of 1997, and began to implement changes in the structure and focus of government, that Iran became much less ostracized by the West. This is so because the government of Iran became not more friendly towards the United States and the West necessarily, but more rational. Iran became more rational from the perspective that politics became more the affair of politicians, rather than the Church. This is typical of the West. The more rational (i.e. less intertwined with the Church) a government is, the easier it is for the West to deal with such government. Subsequently, Iran began to decrease its support for terrorism and still does, at least according to their more or less official stand against terrorism as a means to accomplish political goals. Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, despite all their faults and weaknesses, are viewed in the West and in the United States as countries they can deal with, albeit some of them like Syria more reluctantly. How come therefore, has the United States never pushed at least publicly, for more rationalization of politics in the Middle East? Why didn't the US try after the Gulf War, to push for change in the structure of government in Kuwait? Why have they left Saudi Arabia, a country where they undeniably have huge influence, never tried to push for a democratic form of government that resembles England's? The King can still be the nominal head of State, while the administrative control is the priority of an elected civilian Prime Minister with experiences and understanding of the West and its politics?
In Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, there are these huge oil reserves that are vital to the economies of the more developed West. The Kings there, heavily rely on tradition and Islam to justify and rationalize their hold on power. It is much like old Europe before the French revolution, when the King' status was that of God's direct representative on earth. Therefore then, they had the right and even the obligation to rule over their people, and their words and decisions had biblical worthiness. Those Europeans Kings were responsible for all sorts of deeds and misdeeds against their people, always justifying them through their direct connection with God. This obviously, is an extremely effective way to justify power over people in an irrational society. It is through the use of their people's decent belief in the divine, the Supreme being, God, that these oftentimes corrupt leaders have ruled in Europe, and do rule now over their people in the Middle East.
Granted, the United States and the West as a whole (just like the Soviet Union did with its partners during the Cold War) have benefited from that kind of relationship in the Middle East. Our influence over these Arab régimes have paid off in terms of control over the price of oil for instance, which the United States consumes handsomely. One only has to remember the oil crisis in the late 1970's, when OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), decided to raise the price of the barrel of oil, irrespective of the market's realities, to understand the concocting of the United States and European nations of these otherwise backward regimes. However, such a policy in the long run may be more harmful to the United States and the entire Western world. It provokes anger, frustration from Arab populations in an angle that we in the West may not even be aware of.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for instance are two very wealthy countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia alone has the largest oil reserve in the world (26 percent), and Kuwait carries some 10 percent of that reserve. While these countries are so very rich because of the black gold (as petroleum is sometimes called), their governments are not the most democratic. The State's apparatus in both cases is totally controlled by the King and his acolytes; women do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as men. We could go on and on discussing what we in the West could consider to be "social ills" or social anathema in these two countries. What is important to realize is, that in the case of these two countries, the rights for a regular citizen over his or her destiny are not as positively defined as ours are in the West. There is for instance a legislative branch in Saudi Arabia, but it is appointed by the King. Every key political position is filled not on the basis of talent but rather on kinship and political affiliation. It is not much different in Kuwait, even though their legislative branch is not appointed but elected. The electorate is composed exclusively of males for instance. Only 10 percent of the entire Kuwait population is eligible to vote. With all these factors at play, no one knows for sure what are the true feelings of the local population towards the West. Most of us have seen the images on television, of Palestinians jumping up and down after they have learned of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States. However, in these two countries (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) that are so wealthy and with government quite sympathetic to the U.S. and the West, it may be at best difficult for us to know the true feelings of the average citizens, as to what their view is of these terrorist attacks. We must always keep reminding ourselves that Osama Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire from Saudi Arabia.
What we know is that because of their oil production, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have a large foreign population and many of them are trained workers from the West. These people have their "zone" where they can live their lives as they are accustomed to in the West. But the average Saudi or Kuwaiti citizen does not enjoy the same privileges and may even be resentful of those privileges enjoyed by those foreign workers. Their country's government certainly prefers it that way for many different reasons, one of them being that is that way easier to keep the population from learning a different and more secular way of living their lives.
The US and the prospect of war
It is against this background that the United States is gearing itself to go to war against Afghanistan, and perhaps some other countries in the region that support terrorism. It is a difficult proposition and perhaps even insane at this stage to even suggest that perhaps the United States should consider other options. After all, this is a superpower with an image that it needs to protect. It is also a country that has just experienced the wrath of terrorism in its ugliest form. The attack has damaged the country's economy and probably that of the entire world. We should at the same time consider that the battle to come however necessary it may be, is just a battle, which will be won in all likelihood. On the other hand, the real war can only be won through the United States support of sustained and rational policy changes in the region. This does not mean that the U.S. should be less friendly towards Israel for instance, or that they should abandon the Saudi or the Kuwaiti governments. All this means is that the U.S. should accept after they've won this battle, that many things must be done differently, if they wish to improve their image in the Mid-East and that of the West, while maintaining their influence in the region. Right now it seems as though the only friendship is between the United States and Arab governments. That friendship must expand as well to the Arab people. We must remember that, if has any support in the Arab world, it is not just because of the Palestinian issue. It is also because he is perceived as a valuable challenge to the West and its dealing with the Islamic world.
How then can the U.S. win the peace?
The Latin American prototype
Latin America is still poor. Yet, it is a region that has gone through some profound changes over the past 20 years because of the threat of communism, and the Nicaragua experience. This is oddly enough, an experience that one could look at when considering potential new politics and policies by the West in the Arab world.
At first and following the Cuban revolution in January 1959, the United States supported blindly any government in the region that showed no sympathy for the Soviet Union. In July 1979 however, a little known left-wing group called the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional) toppled one of the most anticommunist and retrograde governments in Latin America. They overthrew through civil war the Somoza dynasty. The United States political establishment had by then, finally recognized the danger in supporting right-wing governments à-la-Somoza, or so we thought. Meanwhile, the FMLN (Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional) in El Salvador began to make gain in a civil war against the government of that country, and the United States came to that government's rescue. From the savagery that ensued with Roberto D'Aubuisson's right-wing group in El Salvador and the Contras in Nicaragua, no one can say for sure whether the Reagan administration had learned some lesson. In any case, eventually, the United States applied enough pressure on the Sandinistas for them to have an election in Nicaragua, won by Mrs. Chamorro. So, the Sandinistas lost control over the executive branch in Nicaragua (which they may regain again soon through elections). The government of El Salvador signed a peace accord in 1992. Guatemala that had gone through a civil war for a long time, suddenly became more opened to democratic ideas following a peace deal between the left-leaning rebel groups and the right-wing government. The Haitian people got rid of Duvalier.
Many may and do complain about the difficulties that all these democracies confront. Still, the challenge of the left has changed focus, from being inimical towards the United States and regarding it as the enemy, to becoming part of the political establishment. The FMLN for instance controls more than 35 percent of the legislative chamber in El Salvador, while the party of president Francisco Flores (from the right) controls 36 percent of that chamber. The FSLN controls 36 percent of the Nicaraguan Parliament while the ruling party (the Liberal Alliance), controls 46 percent. PAN in Guatemala controls 32 percent of the Guatemalan legislative chamber, and the FRG of president Portillo controls 63 percent of that same chamber. These countries are becoming increasingly stable, and much less a "danger" for the United States. The left in this region is increasingly becoming a new left, much less inimical towards the United States, and an integral part of the political process in that region. The sworn enemy is now, other issues like illiteracy, poverty, or unemployment. Governments are becoming increasingly more accountable to their people, and are therefore held responsible for their deeds or misdeeds.
A look at Haiti now shows that same pattern as well. Even though in all appearance the United States supports an opposition that has very little in terms of popular support, the focus of the general population is mostly on issues such as the economy, job creation, literacy, health, and things of that sort. People are now increasingly asking their government to do better, rather than blaming the United States for all their problems.
Had the United States been still supporting those right-wing governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is highly likely that amongst the local population, the United States would have still been regarded as the evil, the enemy, as those terrorists and their supporters do in the Middle East.
Eradicate terrorism in the Middle East: the process of rationalizing Arab governments
If the United States and the West want to win this war in the Middle East, they will have to adapt a policy that is different from what they are accustomed to. It is one thing to say that "it works", or that it has worked for a very long time and should be maintained. It is quite another to recognize the potential danger that it represents, in this new world where ideas travel faster and reach many more people than an airplane can go from JFK Airport to La Guardia International Airport. When religion is used by governments to keep their people in line, there is no telling what may be the results. Religion deals in absolute, for God is the Absolute. Transposing that mentality onto politics is the greatest world to not only peace and security in the Mid-East, but also everywhere else in the world.
Arab governments from Egypt where the United States has enormous influence, to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, need to adapt to the reality of the world. These are societies of frustration where people don't feel like they have a lot of say in their government's policies. They feel wrongly controlled, and rather than putting the blame first on their government, place such blame on the "enemies of Islam" as they call the West. Because their Kings, and/or Emirs are so by tradition and are more accountable to God than their own citizens, the West and Israel become the scapegoat, for they are not Islamic nations. One may look at Saudi Arabia or Kuwait as rich countries because they have so much petroleum. How much of that wealth however do the people think, goes to the West? Islam becomes their last resort it seems to find solace, in these societies where women have no basic rights, a man whatever his talent cannot reach as high the political ladder as he would have in a more fair and rational environment. Imagine for instance a young Arab with the political talent of a Bill Clinton, or a Richard Nixon, but yet, is unable to become a Prime Minister, or some other potent political position because s/he was not born into the right family, or doesn't have the right connections. This is unfortunately the way it is in many Arab countries. The West seems to ignore this, as a determining factor in terrorists being able to successfully recruit young men for suicide bombing or acts of terrorism. The fact is, that it is because in many instances, they feel as though they cannot have no impact on the political equation in their country. What the West needs to do and especially the United States, is to encourage a new political culture within those borders where people can realize that they can impact change within their country through ballots. Right now as it stands, they may feel desperate in terms of their potential to bring about or encourage change within their own border. If and once they do, it will be easier to have a more stable Middle East with less of a threat to the security of not only the United States but the entire world. It has indeed been correctly said more than once by most political analysts, that the Middle East is the ideal region for another World War to take place.
Starting up at home
The best hope is that some things begin to change at university campuses. Despite being a sizable minority in the U.S., Arab culture or even Islamic culture are not as studied or understood, as other cultures. Most young adults who graduate from college are unfamiliar with the Arab world. Worse, many tend to view Arabs, first as religious fanatics. This mentality is also found in high places like the mainstream media, even though they may deny it. The Oklahoma city bombing a few years ago was a chilling reminder of that mentality. Then there was a man of Middle Eastern origin, who was traveling to Europe but was detained by secret service agents until they finally realized that they made a very unfortunate mistake. That kind of mistake is due to stereotyping, which may not anger the immediate victim (who understood in this case), but others from his or her groups. If university campuses begin to give courses on these cultures in the United States, regular middle class citizens may begin to look at that culture differently, and perhaps pay more respect to it.
University officials should also invite prominent Arab intellectuals to their campuses, and give conferences, have debates so the younger generation may begin to understand this so-called "mystery" that has haunted us in the West for so many years, whether we be from Haiti, Sweden, or even Japan. It is through cultural exchanges, student-exchanges programs at universities, that we may begin to create an atmosphere for more positive changes in the region.
The other thing is to this day, there are no recognizable holidays from the Arab world, except perhaps Ramadan. On the other hand, most if not all other groups have made it a point of letting people know of their own cultural heritage through celebrations that are oftentimes widely publicized. Blacks now celebrate Kwanza for instance. This is partly perhaps the fault of Arabs and Moslems themselves who reside in the United States. Is this due to shyness? Is it because they wish to maintain as low a profile as possible? How can the mainstream media help regular people like ourselves, discover or better understand what many prefer to consider as a frightening mystery? Those are the sorts of things that may help decrease the perception that in the United States, people are insensitive towards Arabs.
The long road to peace
Although religion is probably the ticking point to all these difficulties in the Arab world, it may be where to start in order to achieve peace in the region. Strangely enough, the Israeli example may be one of the best for them to follow.
Israel is a state, of a people with a faith. They believe in God and practice their faith through their religion, Judaism. Yet, it is as secular a state as the United States of America, or Germany, or any other Western European country. It is so because the Israeli people have been able to effectively dissociate politics from religion. Granted, there are many religious parties in Israeli's political process. Their influence is however tamed by the strong sense of the Israeli establishment in their duty to keep the state as rational and secular as possible.
We also need to accept the fact that over the years, Islam may have gathered the status of a strong cultural identity in the Arab world. Attacking Islam or people of that faith from that perspective, has become to an Arab or perhaps Moslems in general, as attacking their identity, what makes them who they are in their being, in their soul. The West must be sensitive to that cultural aspect of their faith, and learn to deal with it through better understanding of that very faith.
Simply resolving the Palestinian issue will not cut the slack, as many seem to believe or imply. For instance, a few days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, the PLO leadership and the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signed some kind of a truce. We must remember that the PLO leadership as it is sometimes said in the media, may be more corrupt than most of us would be willing to admit. After resolving that issue, the Palestinian people will still be poor and thus, still a threat to Israel. They will not look upon their authority as responsible for their difficulty. They may use all kinds of conspiracy theory to justify their poverty. Israel will then still be regarded in the Arab world as the "enemy". The solution to the "Arab problem", as some like to put it, does not therefore reside, just in resolving the Palestinian issue.
We also need to overcome our fear of Islam. That as we discussed it previously, should be first and foremost, the privy of academics. It has been said so many times that a third world war will probably start in the Middle East, that we have come to accept that theory as though they were biblical words. This is not necessarily true. Such mentality and self-defeating attitude is in a sense a form of racism. It starts out with the premise, or better the prejudice, that Arabs are just fanatics, with no sense of reason. Their blood has been so burned by the power of the blazing sun, that only political invectives and irrational actions can come from them. In fact, what makes the Arab world rather dangerous is the combination of poverty, religion, and extraordinary wealth. Even though some countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are very wealthy, not all Arab nations are. At the same time, Arab nationalism is like one could say, Latin America nationalism without the dollars. Had there been some wealthy Latin American citizen from the left, like Osama Bin Laden in the 1970's, no one knows whether they would have not tried something as crazy as apparently the Bin Laden ‘s network Al Qaida did recently in the United States. In the 1970's and 1980's, Latin America was boiling hot with intellectuals on the left not only rejecting capitalism, but also and mostly the United States. Now, even the left has agreed that capitalism is the way to go. The left also can and does deal with the United States, without all the fancy rhetoric of the past.
This was fortunately possible because, at that time also, many academics in the United States and even a few voices in Congress dared to say that something must be done. It is that kind of process that should be encouraged at universities in the United States. This is what will help us all move towards a truly lasting peace.
We should all realize that a democratic Middle East, from Iran through Jordan and Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Kuwait, can and will live with Israel in peace. They can be friends. It is no accident that Jordan does have diplomatic relation with Israel. It is a democratic country. Despite much discomfort with Egypt's brand of "democracy", it is also freer to deal with Israel. Egypt is indeed a difficult democracy at best, since Mubarak has been in power there for the past 20 years as president, since after the death by assassination of Sadat. Honesty thus requires one to wonder about the Egyptian's brand of democracy. It certainly is no model to cry out loud about. But still government has enough leeway to decide because, some people or even the majority may disagree with a policy, without the government fearing that its entire power and network apparatus will collapse based on that one political decision.
Finally, we must also remember that the issue of "zone" is not the most dynamic one that can foster change in the region. If anything, it more likely than not angers people. If westerners work in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, they should be able to intermingle with the population there, rather than living in their "own quarters". This certainly does not hurt the Saudi, or the Kuwaiti government. What it does on the other hand, is keeping people from befriending each other, learn to like, dislike, love, and hate each other. It is like saying that "we are not of the same kind". We all know that a valid argument may be that the West may not want to offend the East. How then, can one ever have cross-cultural exchange with a people, unless they are able to freely communicate with each other?
There is indeed hope for both the West and the Middle East. All we must agree upon is, that the problems are complex but can be resolved. Once we do, we will begin to see the light, at the end of the tunnel.
