9/11: Reviving U.S.-Muslim Relations with a new perspective

September 11, 2001, is a date that everyone will remember. The pain and anger that resulted from that day was felt by many worldwide, changing the dynamics of the United States-Muslim relationship. This week, everyone watched as Pastor Terry Jones announced plans to burn the Qu'ran as a demonstration against radical Islam, inciting a flash wave of anger amongst Muslims worldwide. This abuse of freedom of speech, driven by a narcissistic leader of a small congregation, sabotaged a day filled with remembrance for victims. Jones acknowledged he did not know the victims of 9/11, had not read the Qu'ran, and then attempted to state that this was a protest of radical Islam. The fact of the matter is by burning and desecrating a religious text used by followers of any faith, it is not targeting the problem-makers, but rather is offensive to all.


The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.

-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:


Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?

Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.

Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.

Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.

Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.

Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.

Video here.


In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?


Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?


The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.

The complicated chance of peace in Gaza

As the Israeli operation continues in Gaza and President-elect Obama is poised to confront his first major international crisis, the hope to resolve the situation still remains in dismal prospects. The real dilemma to this operation is how to resolve the situation and insure that the circumstances that brought us to this are erased. Without a strong targeting by the international community on the Palestinian Authority and its responsibilities as a government body, the situation will undoubtedly fall into the cycle of repetition as soon as this crisis stops.


This situation is not solely a Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict, but will ultimately lead into the cycle of internal strife amongst Fatah and Hamas. In a computed analysis mapping Hamas' action, the findings were quite interesting. The findings, courtesy of Aaron Mannes and the University of Maryland, conclude:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding was that certain attacks, such as kidnappings and property attacks on Palestinians, tracked with internal Palestinian conflict. Although it occurred after the data was collected, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit occurred during the Hamas-Fatah civil war. Another round of Hamas-Fatah fighting is likely in the West Bank, so more of these kinds of actions should be expected."

As stated previously in all my prior posts, the ultimate threat is the destabilization of the Palestinian Authority. As predicted, Hamas said on January 9 that the term of Mahmoud Abbas had expired and he "is no longer president." The overall rhetoric from the group seemed to challenge Abbas, coming just short of naming a successor. Once again, this potential for two Palestinian administrations seems to hinder the opportunity for diplomacy and prepares the route for a Hamas-Fatah civil war.


Once again, this potential conflict virtually prohibits the ability of Abbas' Fatah-led security forces to crack down on Hamas. Without the Palestinian government's ability to control portions of its territory, the attacks from Gaza will continue.


This is when the opportunity for an international force, similar to the French-led UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, could provide a potential for peace. As Walid Phares has proposed, the presence of an international force inside Gaza would present a step in the right direction for the people of Gaza. With the network of tunnels inside the territory, the movement of weapons has not diminished under Operation Cast Lead and will only be halted when ground troops are present. The positioning of a UN-force can administer aid and ultimately advocate the lifting of the Gaza blockade, acting as an advocate for the citizens of Gaza caught amidst the conflict.


As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalates, the time for action is now. A clear understanding must be made by all international partners, that Hamas can not be recognized as a political organization as it clings to violence. So long as violence comes out there Hamas, there must be a united effort to reduce its terrorist capabilities and to promote democracy amongst the parties involved in Palestinian politics.


Since the Hamas takeover and the placement of the Israeli blockade, the moderates in Gaza have fought to have their voices heard. Many see Hamas responsible for crippling their lives, yet their voices are not in the media. This is the opportunity to hand the stage to the moderates in Middle East affairs, who openly challenge the ideas that breed this senseless cycle of violence, yet we choose to ignore them.

"[Saudi] Prince Bandar bin Sultan said that the Hamas leaders promised, on the day after their election, to persuade their followers within three months that recognition of Israel [was necessary]. Why not surprise Omar Suleiman next month by fulfilling this promise? [The Hamas leaders] are undoubtedly afraid of their followers – [specifically,] of a faction within the Al-Qassam Brigades – and therefore they should be advised by Roosevelt's [saying] about political courage, namely, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." A political movement must first of all serve the interests of the people. Is it in their best interest to remain without a state, hungry and besieged... just because their leaders have lost their political courage? Hamas is at an important crossroads that requires it to shake itself and reshape itself, in order to meet the challenges faced by its people..."

-Arab scholar Lafif Lakhdar

The 2008 Arab-Israeli conflict

As I posted previously, the potential for the Israeli-Hamas battle to become much bigger is the greatest threat to international relations at this time. This is not just a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, but much bigger. This is an opportunity for Iran to secure its nuclear program and divert attention away from its unregulated nuclear program. However, the nuclear program is not the main concern now but rather the terror links that made this war possible.


The number one concern should be in the coming weeks, when Hamas could make good on its promises to disregard Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. The already intense Fatah-Hamas divide could turn into bloodshed, with Palestinian factions warring against each other in the middle of a conflict with Israel. The question then turns to who the international community can talk with, Hamas' president or Abu Mazen? If this conflict is a direct result of Hamas, it would make sense to deal with Hamas, but it is important that the terror group is not given legitimacy through any talks.


This threat cripples the ability to resolve the situation. There will only be a loser, and it will be the Palestinian people. What could develop will be a civil war between Palestinian factions while at the same time engaging Israel. If the Fatah-Hamas conflict flares up, the potential for innocent bloodshed will increase drastically and the international community will be faced with the cries to intervene. Countries will be forced to take sides in a battle between terrorist groups masked as political forces, and the outcome will not be a resolution but rather another ceasefire.


As the world watches the crisis unfold in the Middle East, the potential for the worst to come true seems to be everpresent. I hope the Palestinian Authority can hold its power, but that answer could emerge in nearly a week. This crisis is plagued by the many changes occurring on the world stage, most notably President-elect Obama set to swear-in on January 20. Only time will tell where the situation will turn next, but looking at the trend of recent similar situations, this one will get alot worse.

A tragic failure of negotiations

Many critics say that the Middle East is a region that will remain at war, plagued by conflicts that can not be resolved. Just as things looked on the rise from the region, the six-month ceasefire with Hamas ended. In an instant, the temporary peace exploded. All the boasting of Israeli ministers on the ceasefire's success disappeared with a fresh volley of rockets.


While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.


Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.


There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.

1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?

It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.

2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?

Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.


The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.