Last week?s al-Ahram Weekly, an Egyptian newspaper, contained an article on US president George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Entitled ?A Year of Living Dangerously? and written by a professor of political science at Cairo University, opens with the words, ?2000 was the year of George W. Bush, a man of little intelligence and less knowledge, brought to power on the shoulders of the ultra-right in one of the most open democracies in the world following the strangest presidential election ever. 2001 was the year of the enigmatic Osama Bin Laden, leader of an underground organization of limited means and capacities, who successfully masterminded the most stinging slap in the face to the most powerful nation in the world through an attack that defied even the most vivid imagination. 2002 was the year of both these peculiar men....?
Initially writing that ?the contest between Bush and Bin Laden over the past year, in some of its superficial aspects, brings to mind that comical sketch of the vicious cat plotting to devour a cunning mouse...? the professor, Hassan Nafaa, goes on to say, ?This is no ordinary game of cat and mouse. From the outset the protagonists have sought to set the international scene for a confrontation between the Christian West and Muslim East, with Bush and Bin Laden the self-appointed and sole spokesmen for the respective sides. That many international forces believe they have an interest in a global clash of this nature adds frightful force to the nightmare.?
The Cairo University professor finds it logical that ?the Islamic world, fragmented, conflict-ridden and as full of contradictions as it is, would produce a personality as complex and dangerous as Bin Laden.? The author sees similarities between Bin Laden and Bush; however, according to the al-Ahram article, ?it does not make sense that a country with solid democratic institutions should voluntarily hand over the reins of control to a person of the nature of George W Bush at this sensitive phase in the development of the global order.?
Continuing his theme, professor Nafaa searches history for parallels with the American people?s choice of George W. Bush as president. As he writes, ?historical events jump to mind to remind me that advanced societies, equipped with powerful and effective institutions, are not necessarily immune to the attempts of adventurers and gamblers to hijack them and that these societies, more often than not, end up paying a horrendous price for their choice of leadership or for their inability to stand up against those gamblers at the crucial time. Napoleon Bonaparte came to power in France through a coup d'?tat.... In Germany during the inter-war period, many domestic and regional factors conspired to augment the influence and popularity of the National Socialist Party led by Hitler.... The German example is particularly instructive for its affirmation of the view that the electorate does not always choose wisely and that the democratic process, alone, does not necessarily furnish sufficient guarantee that the society whose voice the elected government is supposed to represent is strong enough to prevent it from being commandeered by an adventurer.? And Nafaa develops his analogy between Bush and Hitler even more explicitly in the Egyptian weekly: ?2002 showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the administration in Washington -- representing the American ultra-right and brought to power through polls in which there were suspicions of tampering and which had to be resolved by court order -- exploited the events of 11 September to mobilise the American public behind a special political agenda. One cannot help but recall the manner in which Hitler manipulated the German people to adopt the agenda of the Nazi Party.?
The al-Ahram Weekly article goes on to explain Bush?s motivations in the war he launched following the attacks of September 11, 2001: ?Washington is not so much concerned with eliminating the sources of international terrorism as it is with using terrorism to tighten its grip over the entire world and to eliminate all opposition to its policies.... The current behavior of the US is yielding results completely opposite from what Washington says are its aims. The war in Afghanistan claimed thousands of innocent lives without having eliminated Al-Qa'eda or killed or captured Bin Laden, but it did justify what appears to be a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The war it intends to unleash against Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, lacks all legal or moral justification and will also claim thousands of lives and inflict yet further destruction on Iraq. It will, however, justify an American military presence there. Nor is it likely that the war on Iraq will be the last of the US's wars under the banner of the fight against terrorism. Washington fingered Iran, haphazardly, as a member of the ?axis of evil? it intends to do in. It has unleashed a media war against many other Arab countries, including allies such as Saudi Arabia.?
And then, Nafaa reaches his climactic conclusion - the US is trying to divide and conquer the Arab Moslems on behalf of the state of Israel: ?Washington's actions and polemics, together, suggest that it has targeted Islam and that it plans to reshape the region in a manner that will obviate the emergence of an Arab nationalist or Islamic ideology of unification or resistance. Towards this end, it most likely intends to redraw the map of the region on the basis of ethnic or sectarian rivalries.... Arabs and Muslims realize that the only nation to benefit will be Israel, and Washington will have paved the way for it to become an unrivaled regional power virtually overnight.?
Ultimately, according to the Egyptian professor, even Islamic extremism is the fault of the US and Israel. He writes, ?The US has yet to realize that its unswerving and blind support for Israel, regardless of who is in power, has helped to isolate the voices of peace and moderation in Israel itself and emboldened Jewish extremism. It was only natural for this to fuel the rise of Islamic extremism in return.? It is up the US to understand that Israel is the source of its problems with Islamism, Nafaa explains, and ?[o]nly when the US finally fathoms this dynamic will it be able start to fumble its way towards an effective solution to terrorism in the world.? If not, Washington ?will lead the world down the same path Hitler led it, but with far more lethal power at its disposal,? the Egyptian article warns.
Initially writing that ?the contest between Bush and Bin Laden over the past year, in some of its superficial aspects, brings to mind that comical sketch of the vicious cat plotting to devour a cunning mouse...? the professor, Hassan Nafaa, goes on to say, ?This is no ordinary game of cat and mouse. From the outset the protagonists have sought to set the international scene for a confrontation between the Christian West and Muslim East, with Bush and Bin Laden the self-appointed and sole spokesmen for the respective sides. That many international forces believe they have an interest in a global clash of this nature adds frightful force to the nightmare.?
The Cairo University professor finds it logical that ?the Islamic world, fragmented, conflict-ridden and as full of contradictions as it is, would produce a personality as complex and dangerous as Bin Laden.? The author sees similarities between Bin Laden and Bush; however, according to the al-Ahram article, ?it does not make sense that a country with solid democratic institutions should voluntarily hand over the reins of control to a person of the nature of George W Bush at this sensitive phase in the development of the global order.?
Continuing his theme, professor Nafaa searches history for parallels with the American people?s choice of George W. Bush as president. As he writes, ?historical events jump to mind to remind me that advanced societies, equipped with powerful and effective institutions, are not necessarily immune to the attempts of adventurers and gamblers to hijack them and that these societies, more often than not, end up paying a horrendous price for their choice of leadership or for their inability to stand up against those gamblers at the crucial time. Napoleon Bonaparte came to power in France through a coup d'?tat.... In Germany during the inter-war period, many domestic and regional factors conspired to augment the influence and popularity of the National Socialist Party led by Hitler.... The German example is particularly instructive for its affirmation of the view that the electorate does not always choose wisely and that the democratic process, alone, does not necessarily furnish sufficient guarantee that the society whose voice the elected government is supposed to represent is strong enough to prevent it from being commandeered by an adventurer.? And Nafaa develops his analogy between Bush and Hitler even more explicitly in the Egyptian weekly: ?2002 showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the administration in Washington -- representing the American ultra-right and brought to power through polls in which there were suspicions of tampering and which had to be resolved by court order -- exploited the events of 11 September to mobilise the American public behind a special political agenda. One cannot help but recall the manner in which Hitler manipulated the German people to adopt the agenda of the Nazi Party.?
The al-Ahram Weekly article goes on to explain Bush?s motivations in the war he launched following the attacks of September 11, 2001: ?Washington is not so much concerned with eliminating the sources of international terrorism as it is with using terrorism to tighten its grip over the entire world and to eliminate all opposition to its policies.... The current behavior of the US is yielding results completely opposite from what Washington says are its aims. The war in Afghanistan claimed thousands of innocent lives without having eliminated Al-Qa'eda or killed or captured Bin Laden, but it did justify what appears to be a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The war it intends to unleash against Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, lacks all legal or moral justification and will also claim thousands of lives and inflict yet further destruction on Iraq. It will, however, justify an American military presence there. Nor is it likely that the war on Iraq will be the last of the US's wars under the banner of the fight against terrorism. Washington fingered Iran, haphazardly, as a member of the ?axis of evil? it intends to do in. It has unleashed a media war against many other Arab countries, including allies such as Saudi Arabia.?
And then, Nafaa reaches his climactic conclusion - the US is trying to divide and conquer the Arab Moslems on behalf of the state of Israel: ?Washington's actions and polemics, together, suggest that it has targeted Islam and that it plans to reshape the region in a manner that will obviate the emergence of an Arab nationalist or Islamic ideology of unification or resistance. Towards this end, it most likely intends to redraw the map of the region on the basis of ethnic or sectarian rivalries.... Arabs and Muslims realize that the only nation to benefit will be Israel, and Washington will have paved the way for it to become an unrivaled regional power virtually overnight.?
Ultimately, according to the Egyptian professor, even Islamic extremism is the fault of the US and Israel. He writes, ?The US has yet to realize that its unswerving and blind support for Israel, regardless of who is in power, has helped to isolate the voices of peace and moderation in Israel itself and emboldened Jewish extremism. It was only natural for this to fuel the rise of Islamic extremism in return.? It is up the US to understand that Israel is the source of its problems with Islamism, Nafaa explains, and ?[o]nly when the US finally fathoms this dynamic will it be able start to fumble its way towards an effective solution to terrorism in the world.? If not, Washington ?will lead the world down the same path Hitler led it, but with far more lethal power at its disposal,? the Egyptian article warns.