International Political Will

Most Arab countries have not officially recognized Israel. Egypt is the sole exception, and that was in part because of Jimmy Carter, whom many now chastise as an “appeaser,” “un-American,” and an “anti-Semite.” Good deeds are quickly forgotten in polarized times of hate and extremism.

But there is a much bigger problem than the epithets hurled at Americans who wish to engage in diplomacy instead of preemptive missile strikes. The “us versus them” siege mentality since Sept. 11 has redefined interaction between cultures as cramming American propaganda down the throats of Arabs and Muslims in order to help them “understand” why they are wrong and we are right. Not only are we not listening, but what we do hear is carefully censored to reinforce our own worldview. Communication with the “other” has become a one-way street.

In the so-called “war on terror,” American politicians, pundits and news editors alike believe that secularism is the answer. They all seem to think the miracle pill of democracy and a separation of religion and state will make this whole “Islam problem” go away. The idea that Islam and democracy could possibly co-exist in government is discarded (despite claims by many of those same people that U.S. legislation should reflect that America “is a Christian country”).

News stories are consumed by this theme, and this leads to a censored and selective narrative that reinforces misconceptions and prejudices. Most news stories about Islam are negative and violent; the “hero” and “feel-good” stories on the networks and in our newspapers are only about those Arabs or Muslims that openly defy their religion, eschew religious or tribal identity, or break long-entrenched social taboos.

Positive stories involving Islam in the western media are focused on how Islam is “not getting in the way of normal development.” Stories that do not fit this narrative will never see the ink of the printing press. The one thing that unites the so-called “enemy” - religion - is feared and ignored. The idea that Islam could ever aid in solutions is not a part of the American consciousness. How can we understand something if we choose to only listen to a censored version?

Against this background of media aiding the marginalization of religion (when that religion is Islam), politicians cannot engage in diplomacy with the ‘other’ without alienating their own constituency. Voters are convinced that Islam can never be part of the answer; therefore, talking to anyone who believes otherwise is a waste of time. But how can we truly know the “other” if we do not engage them?

We seem to forget the power of religion in human lives. Would any self-respecting Christian or Jew discard their faith when faced with a challenge? Obama was right: we do “cling to religion” - tightly. It is the underlying force that drives our compassion, forgiveness and sense of justice. How can we expect others to ignore their religion as they attempt to rebuild lives, cities, schools, and governments?

We need a media that covers all angles: journalists that initiate the communication process with the “others” that we know so little about. Communication is a two-way street; it involves talking and listening. Beaming eloquent speeches or American Idol via satellite to the Middle East is not communication: it’s propaganda.

Shamefully, the most important development in the last few months concerning the so-called “war on terror” was all but ignored by the news media, likely because it used religion - including Islam - as a solution. A single Associated Press article covered the event; Google News turned up 3 results (all the same AP story).

Qatar - a Muslim country - hosted a multi-faith meeting last week at a new scholar center created to promote peaceful communication between religions. Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders came together and - imagine this - talked. More than 12 Jewish rabbis were in attendance - two of them from Israel.

A rabbi from Tel Aviv, David James Lazar, said it was a “chance to exchange stories.” He said “the benefits…were huge…especially the ability to make personal connections with Arabs and Muslims ‘who otherwise I would have no contact with.’”

And that’s where the peace process begins - by including religion and talking with people who “otherwise we would have no contact with.”

Once this communication highway is built, Americans will reap the rewards. Truth will replace rumors. Friendship will replace mistrust. Diplomacy will replace fear.

Talking with your enemy doesn’t mean using “some ingenious argument that will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” as President Bush claims. It means communicating and understanding hopes, concerns, and worries so that a mutual solution can be found. The alternative - dropping bombs - is just trying “to persuade them they have been wrong all along” without the ingenious part.

Censoring the ‘other’ when their story doesn’t fit our narrative or comfort level only serves to build a bigger wall.

Surely the narratives of Israel and Egypt were vastly different in 1978, and neither side thought they could succeed in the negotiations using “some ingenious argument to persuade the other they have been wrong all along.”

So they simply sat down and began by “exchanging stories.”

Trackback URI | Comments RSS