The Arabs who cry out in protest against the US presence in Iraq did not utter a murmur when one of the most villainous criminals, modern history has ever known took control of the country from 1968 until his ignominious capture (he was found hiding in a hole in the ground like a cornered rat) in 2003.

These same Arabs who remained unmoved by the atrocities committed by the Arab Sudanese tribes against the Sudanese tribes of African origin (both of whom are Muslims), and minimized the extent of the crimes perpetrated against them, raised a hue and cry over the UN intervention in Sudanese affairs, headed by the Secretary-General of the Arab League. As if the sovereignty of the Sudan were more important than the lives of the thousands of Sudanese who were massacred and left homeless! What kind of murky reasoning is this?

They refused to accept international rulings regarding the division of Palestine into two separate states in 1947, one for the Arabs and the other for the Jews.

Ironically, these same Arabs would literally be dancing for joy if they were to be given the same opportunity the United Nations made them in 1947 and which they then refused, leading to the first disastrous confrontation with Israel in 1949 which culminated in Israel’s acquiring more land than had originally been allotted to it by the UN decree of 1947.

The contemporary Middle East is stronghold of modern dictators. Men whose energy cleverness, and ruthlessness enables them to master their countries. The behavior of Arab leaders has been shaped by a set of power of ruling values. They are supposed to be militant Arab nationalists, supportive of Islam, and opposed to western values and Israel.

Beginning in 1930s, and reaching its apex in Naserism. Arab nationalism played a more important role than did Islam in defining political identity and options. It demanded an struggle for Arab unity, the removal of non-arab influences , Israel’s destruction, economic progress and military might.

Consequently , those in power in Arab countries face a complex, delicate series of decisions. In daily practice , their primary concern is the security of their own territories. Egypt and Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arab, Syria and Libya have to operate in regard to different kinds of capacities and problems.

Pragmatic considerations often potentially violates Islamic and Arab nationalist precepts. For example , a regime might need western support to counter the aggression of another Arab state. These necessities , however , have no legitimacy within the framework of Arab politics and ideology.

These are the set of rules of regional relations, internal politics and intellectual debates: Everyone has to be in favour of greater inter-arab cooperation and has at least give lip service to Islamic values.

Why haven’t Arabs been able to unite? Why have Islamic values fail to prevail? Why are their states still behind the west, and why is the west able to intervene so easily in their regional affairs? Why has been Israel able to defeat repeatedly its more populous Arab opponents?

Because the regimes follow the wrong policy ! it strays too far from Islam or from Arab Nationalism; it is servile towards west and afraid to fight Israel.

Be Sociable, Share!