Of course, criticizing America is not the same as agreeing with the status quo in the Middle East, a mistake that some readers of Khalidi’s book might make. Although his condemnation of America’s actions is quite strong, he doesn’t hesitate to level strong condemnations against Arab governments for their own failures to protect human rights. If America’s attempts to “bring democracy” to the Middle East are not the way to go, what should be done?
Khalidi does offer some suggestions, starting off with the fact that the entire debate needs to be reframed:
- “The first thing to recognize is that many countries in the Middle East have some experience with and commitment to a democratic tradition.... This is therefore not a situation in which it is necessary for enlightened Americans or Westerners to bring democracy to benighted “rag-heads” stuck in the Middle Ages.... A second point that must be made is that this “democratic deficit” in the Arab world has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion. ...There is plentiful evidence from the Arab world and elsewhere that Islam is no more incompatible with democracy than any other major religion....”
As far as practical suggestions go — suggestions for what the West can help with, at least — Khalidi recommends first and foremost that nationalist and border disputes be settled. This may not automatically lead to democracy, but letting them fester allows the resentments and hatreds which undermine democracy grow and gain power.
There are many issues subsumed under this: territorial disputes between Iraq and Iran, ethnic disputes within nations (like the Kurds), and perhaps most importantly the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. So long as violence continues over these matters, liberal democratic reforms in the Middle East may not get very far.
Khalidi is no disinterested, objective scholar; instead, he’s passionate about the Middle East and efforts to help the people there. That passion is laudable and helps make his book a more engaging account of the Arab world’s conflict with imperial Western power. At the same time, though, that passion may have led him to make some serious errors in the text. For example, he writes about the violence between Palestinians and Israel:
- “It came to be generally believed by those who got their information from the American mass media that the Palestinians launched the intifada at the instigation of their leadership, and that Yasir Arafat in particular was primarily responsible for the violence that followed.... In fact the intifada started as an unarmed, popular mass protest against the provocative visit of Ariel Sharon to the Haram al-Sharif....”
Actually, people who listen to the Palestinians’ leaders will also get the impression that the intifada was instigated by them — because they have admitted it. Imad Falouji, Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted during a speech at a refugee camp in Lebanon on March 3, 2001, that plans for violence had been drawn up as early as July of that year:
- “Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.”
Khalidi consistently portrays Arab Muslims as innocent victims of the machinations of Western politicians, something that leads to inaccurate information like we see above. This seriously undermines his credibility and the value of his book. The errors and bad faith of Western nations acting in the Middle East are undeniable, but Arab leaders share plenty of blame for the state of things today.
Khalidi may be right that invasion and occupation are not the way to solve things and his description of imperial history of the region does an excellent job at making his case. I do wish, however, that he had stuck more to verifiable facts rather than allowing his passions and prejudices to lead him — and readers — astray.
« Back...
