April 2001



The derailment of the peace process after President Clinton's untimely Camp David meeting with
Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak in July 2000 as well as the rekindling of terrorist
activities inside and outside the Middle East shows once again that the Arab-Israeli conflict is
one of many interrelated problems that encompass the entire Muslim world and its relations with
the West. The American mediation stumbled primarily over the future of Jerusalem. As the
Egyptian president and the leaders of other Arab and non-Arab Muslim countries have warned
time and time again, no Muslim can relinquish rights to East Jerusalem and its holy sites.

In fact, the Middle East conflict extends far beyond the states bordering Israel. It concerns
Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others throughout the planet. It threatens world peace and
touches on the national interests of many states, including the United States. It underlines the
contrasting political structures of the adversaries, which, although living side by side, are far
from being "contemporaries": Israel, with its democratic institutions, is in the twenty-first
century, whereas others are still sleeping in autocracies of the Middle Ages. The conflict also
reflects the overarching antagonism between two opposed religious and cultural views
exacerbated by local factors. It envinces deeply rooted psychological feelings that go back to
ancient times. It involves economic aspects, for a great part of world oil resources are
concentrated in the region. It bears on free trade in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea.
Also, it nurtures expanding terrorist activities both locally and internationally.

It is no secret that militant Islamist organizations teach hatred of the West in general and the
United States in particular. To them because Islam is the most recent and "final" message of God
and because Muhammad is the "seal" (the ultimate) prophet, it supersedes both Judaism and
Christianity and should rule the entire world; this verity constitutes the doctrinal basis of jihad
(holy war) that allowed Arabia's Bedouins to conquer many lands, including Palestine; the
"interruption" of jihad in the eighth century was provisional; according to Muslim ulamas
(theologian-jurisprudents), the world is divided between the "House of Islam" and the "House of
War," which must be united sooner or later under the flag of Islam. From this perspective, Israel
is an implant of the West in the "House of Islam." Muslims should therefore start a new jihad
(holy war) in order to throw out the Jewish state and bring the whole planet under Islam's flag.
Militant Islamist groups adhere to this "interpretation" and proclaim the "renewal" of jihad. In
general, observers consider them "extremist" and as straying from mainstream Islam. A glance at
the history of Islam may help in clarifying their nature and role.

During its first three centuries, the Muslim world was relatively open and tolerant, allowing a
brilliant civilization to develop rapidly. But by the end of the eleventh century, this openness had
almost vanished. For a host of political, economic, social, cultural, and military reasons, the
strictest interpretations of the Koran gradually dominated Muslim theology. The doors to the rest
of the world were tightly closed and Muslims lived in seclusion. Decadence steadily eroded the
Muslim world, and save for a few short-lived episodes, Muslim countries never regained their
splendor.

What many experts seem to forget is that the fundamentalist views that triumphed in the Middle
Ages are still in force in today's Muslim world where ulamas uphold them against the slightest hint
of revision. With the passing of time, fundamentalism lost its cutting edge. Nevertheless, in the
nineteenth century, as a consequence of commercial contacts, several defeats suffered by the
Ottoman armies, and the spread of colonialism, Muslims could no longer ignore the scientific and
technological advances of the West. Modernizing trends appeared in some countries and clashed
with traditional ways of living. As a result fundamentalist movements rose from their ashes,
galvanizing leaders who called for jihad (holy war) against the Western infidels who, in their view,
were plotting to erase Islam from the planet. The renewed agitation subsided only to be rekindled
with an unprecedented vigor after the creation of the state of Israel.

Therefore, fundamentalism, far from being a new phenomenon, characterizes what had been
called mainstream Islam since the twelfth century. Consequently, applying the adjective
fundamentalist to describe "terrorist" movements may be misleading. That is why the National
Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) about fifteen years ago coined the phrase
"militant Islamic fundamentalism" in order to characterize militant groups and to avoid any
confusion about the necessity of distinguishing terrorism from Islam--one of the three Abrahamic
religions. We are gratified our effort to do so has gained currency in most of the writings about
the subject.

Today this kind of terrorist group, often in connivance with rogue states, constitutes a new and
extremely dangerous manifestation of the turmoil that agitates the Muslim world. Such groups do
not hide their aims, which are the same as those of similar groups of the past: (1) the overthrow
of local Muslim rulers; (2) strict application of the sharia; (3) the revival of jihad against the
West and Israel. Over the years they have also learned to adapt their tactics to local
circumstances. They pursue their objectives behind "fronts"of "charitable" or so-called moderate
organizations. In the Western democracies, they take advantage of all the freedoms to pervade
Muslim communities and deceive the media and human rights organizations. Those who have
"bases" in rogue countries strive to acquire all kinds of arms and train activists for specific
strikes. In January 1999 President Clinton warned that it was likely that a terrorist group would
launch or threaten to unleash a germ or chemical attack on American soil "within the next few
years."

Such a gloomy backdrop is unrelieved by the knowledge that several states are making progress
in their quests to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan and India have recently joined
the "Nuclear Club." Iraq and Libya, according to observers, possess arsenals of chemicals and
germs capable of killing millions of people. Iran is developing long-range missiles and is trying to
build "atomic" bombs and so on.

Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policymakers have not always been up to the demands of the
situation. Until the early 1990s the main objectives of the United States were to maintain the
flow of oil and to block Soviet influence. Those objectives pushed Washington to pursue
contradictory tactics such as strengthening militant Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, fostering traditional tribalism in some parts of the Persian Gulf and encouraging
modernization in other parts of the Arab and Muslim world, denouncing terrorist states such as
Syria and arranging for the president to visit Damascus, and so on. Israel shares at least part of
the blame for authorizing settlements in the occupied territories, helping Iran against Iraq during
their eight-year war, using individuals of shadowy character to establish contacts between
Washington and the mullahs, and so on. And it should be mentioned that Western governments
and companies have often stiffed contempt by frequently putting cash before principles in their
dealings with the Muslim world.

In general, the West and especially the United States have taken a piecemeal approach to the
interrelated problems of the Middle East and the Muslim world. In contrast, the National
Committee on American Foreign Policy has made a case for adopting a comprehensive approach
so that the interrelated elements that provoke or encourage instability in the region can be dealt
with. To be sure, every effort must be made to avoid the eruption of a war between the Arabs
and the Israelis. Accordingly, peace negotiations should be pursued patiently despite all the
stumbling blocks. At the same time the United States and its allies should devise policies that are
capable of deterring countries such as Libya, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Iraq from aiding terrorist
organizations directly or indirectly. They should also take measures to stop the flow of financial
help to militant fundamentalist groups from oil-rich countries and so-called charitable institutions
based in the West.

Furthermore, to confront militant Islamic fundamentalism effectively, the United States must
promote among its allies as well as in the framework of the United Nations policies that will
guarantee the independence and territorial integrity of the countries in the region; prevent the
establishment of hegemony by any one state or a combination of states in the Persian Gulf;
protect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities; control the flow of arms in the region,
especially weapons of mass destruction; and adopt a strong common stance against states that
sponsor terrorism, harbor terrorists, or offer them a haven.

As it addresses such problems of a pressing and immediate nature, the United States and its
partners should also consider other basic obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East and
the Muslim world. One such hurdle, the NCAFP believes, resides in the mind-set and beliefs of the
people of the region. It is obvious that neither the United States nor its Western allies can
interfere in issues concerning religious interpretations of the Bible and the Koran. But they can
encourage Muslim and Jewish intellectuals both from the West as well as from the region to
remind Muslims and Jews that the hallowed past is steeped in mythology and that the torch of
fundamentalism and nationalism cannot light up for them or their children the "global" highways of
the new century and millenium. Western countries in general and the United States in particular
can help the "modernizers" in the region and the scholars living in the East address the
philosophical and theological aspects of the problem.

The NCAFP considers the question of changing mind-sets an important element of establishing
lasting peace and stability in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and South Asia.