The US should stop talking evasively about the "war on terror", declares Prof. Daniel Pipes, an American expert on Middle East affairs. She must call the enemy by name: this is a "war on militant Islam". This is not preaching a religious war, Pipes claims, and calls on the West to "push" Islam into isolation
Yossi Melman
Photo: Nir Kidar Pipes. "During the security checks when boarding the planes, which I consider a joke, they confiscate knives and even nail clippers, all so as not to say that the suspects are Muslims"
The treasure trove of images of Prof. Daniel Pipes in his analysis of Islam, takes him away from the realms of the Second World War and the Cold War.
"We need to treat the phenomenon of militant Islam like the Nazis and fight it like the free world fought the Nazis and then Soviet communism - a war on all fronts and by all means."
Pipes, an American expert on Middle East affairs, participated last week in the Herzliya conference, held on behalf of the Interdisciplinary Center. He studied and taught at Harvard University, engaged in research for three years in Egypt, served as a consultant to the United States Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense and authored many books and articles, among others on Iran and Syria.
According to him, the phenomenon and manifestations of militant Islam are not new; Their beginning was in the twenties of the last century, and maybe even earlier. But only in February, 1979 with the success of the Islamic revolution in Iran, prominent representatives of the fundamentalist current managed to come to power in the country for the first time, "and from that moment they launched an attack against the US and the West". He points to three key events that took place at the same time in November 1979 as marking the beginning of the attack: the students taking over the US Embassy in Tehran and taking the staff hostage, the attack on the US Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan and the attempt to take over the Kaaba complex in Mecca. "They succeeded in Tehran and failed in Islamabad and Mecca, but since then they have been attacking and attacking."
A war with people, not weapons
From the time until the September 11, 2001 attacks, Pipes counted hundreds of incidents, in which about 800 Americans were killed around the world, starting with dozens of incidents of the kidnapping of Western hostages in Beirut, through the hijacking of a TVE plane in 1985, also in Beirut, and ending with the attack The terror attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, in which 224 people were killed. "Unfortunately, all of these events were perceived by law enforcement in the US as criminal events, instead of being defined as a war." Therefore, there was no change in thinking and there was no attempt to damage the infrastructure of militant Islam.
"Only after September 11 did the American government realize that war had been declared on us." The US retaliated when it attacked in Afghanistan and is currently operating in Yemen, the Philippines and other countries. These actions are indeed intended to destroy infrastructure and, according to Pipes, a certain change in policy is also noticeable. This change is manifested, for example, in the establishment of the new Ministry of "Homeland Security" and in the mobilization of the American Immigration Authority in the fight, which is designed to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into the United States.
"But", he emphasizes, "all these are not enough". Prof. Pipes would also like to see a change in the definition. "We call the fight the 'war on international terrorism'. This is a meaningless definition. It's like saying war with guns or war with ships. All the security arrangements that are made with us are aimed at avoiding the treatment of the root of the problem. The concept of security is to look for weapons and not the people who hold them. That's why, for example, in the security checks on boarding planes, which in my view are one big joke, they confiscate knives, pocketknives and even took nail clippers from me, all in order not to say that the suspects are the Muslims. Although the security arrangements and the immigration authority's approach are aimed at burdening the Muslims, we are afraid to say so. Why not tell the truth: what we are looking for are terrorists and 100% of terrorists today are Muslims."
Do you want the US to declare war on Islam?
"No. By no means against Islam. Only against militant and radical Islam. The suspect should be explicitly told, whether he is Egyptian or Somali or whatever, 'it is not because of your nationality but because you are a Muslim militant'. Just like it was sixty years ago. The world went to fight the Nazi Germans not because they were Germans but because they were Nazis. And during the Cold War they fought, although not in a hot war, the Soviet Communists not because they were Russians or other nationalities but because of their totalitarian ideology. In my opinion, this is the main obstacle facing us."
Pipes believes that the fight today is not only against terrorism and that terrorism is only the symptom of the problem. According to him, "the problem is extreme Islam in all its manifestations. Not only the violent; He also has non-violent expressions. There are groups in the US that operate with non-violent, no less serious methods, such as preaching to convert, attempts to influence legislation, propaganda and more."
But these are the rules of the democratic game.
"I am not suggesting that people be arrested without trial, but they should not be given legitimacy. The leaders, religious priests, preachers and preachers of all kinds, those who do not disapprove of violence and terrorism, should not be invited to the White House. They must not be given political and social legitimacy."
Pipes emphasizes that his view does not depart from the starting point of "clash of cultures", which Samuel Huntington wrote about, and that he is not preaching a religious war. "Absolutely not; Only for the war against militant Islam. Muslims themselves are victims. As in the case of Salman Rushdie, as in the murder of Muslims in many parts of the world. Militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution."
Do you think militant Muslims have gotten stronger because of the weakness of the West?
"Not because of the weakness of the West but because of the weakness of the Muslim world. The Muslim world went through three stages. The first was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when he adopted the European liberal national tradition; Then he took the ideas of socialist totalitarianism and established dictatorship regimes of sorts, which decorated themselves with socialism and communism; Now the tendency is towards Muslim tyranny and totalitarianism. It is true that this attitude is seductive and radiates power, and therefore the Muslim leaders find it difficult to deal with it. And so, because of the weakness of the moderate Muslim leaderships, we have to do the work. As we declared an uncompromising war on the Nazis and later on the Soviet totalitarianism. In both cases we managed to destroy them and bring about the downfall of fascism and Marxism. This is how we must strive to eliminate Muslim militancy. This should be our goal."
And do you think it can be done?
"You can and you must. Of course, in this struggle we cannot act alone. We need to recruit moderate Islam to our side. We must help them help themselves. This can only be achieved if we push for reforms so that Islam undergoes a process of modernization.
Islam has never gone through a process of modernization, like Christianity and Judaism. As part of such a process, old concepts must be uprooted and given a new meaning."
A new meaning for jihad
According to Pipes, "Slavery is still accepted in some parts of the Muslim world, such as in Sudan or Pakistan. They oppose interest on principle. It is true that an interest rate of 5% per day is a biting interest that must be fought, but an interest rate of 3% per year is reasonable and even positive. The term 'Jihad' needs to be given a new, current and appropriate meaning for the times. For this, the Muslims need new philosophers, modern halachic teachers and other politicians. And achieving all of these actually means announcing a much more ambitious project than 'just' a war on terror."
There are clear elements of arrogance and lordship in your words, considering we know better what is good for Muslims.
"This is not lordship. This is the order of the hour. Once we show our determination and eliminate our real enemy, as we eliminated Nazism and the Soviets, we will find allies among the moderate Muslims. This is what happens in Afghanistan. Who was Hamid Karzai? Who knew him until a year ago? But as soon as we eliminated the Taliban, the forces were found in Afghan society, moderates who wanted change and did not have the power to do so. We gave Karzai a chance. If we do not do this, we ourselves will be defeated by them. It should be understood that we are in a war just like in World War II. This is a war of ideas. Our idea versus their idea. We have military capabilities and they have shoulder-fired missiles and explosives.
"To a certain extent, the global situation is reminiscent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a clash of wills. Whoever shows more determination and a stronger will will win. If we delay, the disasters will be even greater. For me the question is when will we wake up. Shall we do it now, right now, or shall we continue to snooze. In this respect, the September 11 attacks were a wake-up call. Just like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and like the surprise that landed on the West when it turned out that the Soviets also obtained a hydrogen bomb."
Published in "Haaretz", 8/12/2002
