Middle East Articles

Premium Content

No one who watched in horror as the towers of the World Trade Center crumbled into dust on September 11, 2001, could doubt that the real target of the terrorist assault was US global power. Those involved in similar attacks and in similar groups have said as much. Mahmood Abouhalima, one of the Al Qaeda-linked activists convicted for his role in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, told me in a prison interview that buildings such as these were chosen to dramatically demonstrate that “the government is the enemy.” While the US government and its allies have been frequent targets of recent terrorist acts, religious leaders and groups are seldom targeted.

By Mark Juergensmeyer  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

By the middle of the 20th century, pundits and intellectuals in the West generally took it for granted that secularism was the coming ideology and that religion would never again play a major role in public life. However, within a few years, it became clear that a militant piety had erupted in every major faith, dragging God and religion back to center stage from the sidelines to which they had been relegated. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran showed the potential of this new form of faith. Western observers were astonished to see an obscure mullah overturning what had appeared to be one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. “Who ever took religion seriously?” cried a frustrated official in the US State Department shortly after the revolution.

By Karen Armstrong  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

Religion historically has been a major source of international conflict, and its role as such has been reinforced in recent years. Hans Kung has asserted that the “most fanatical and cruelest political struggles are those that have been colored, inspired, and legitimized by religion.” In his famous essay, “Clash of Civilizations,” Samuel Huntington went so far as to argue that the great divisions among humankind and the dominating sources of conflict in global politics are based on culture, which is primarily differentiated by religion. Huntington’s opinion, however, is an exaggeration of the importance of religion in international conflict.

By David Smock  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

What aspects of the conflict in Bosnia made it possible for the United States to intervene?

By Anthony Lake  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

Henry Munson’s article (“Lifting the Veil: Understanding the Roots of Islamic Militancy,” Winter 2004) makes a valuable contribution in the study of the development of Islamic militancy. He argues convincingly that US policies in the Arab world are key to understanding the widespread and growing hostility toward the United States. Munson rightly chides US leaders who play to ignorance and fear by declaring simplistically that Muslim extremists “hate our freedoms.”

By Charles Kimball  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

For centuries the olive branch has been offered as a symbol of unconditional peace, since olive trees take decades to produce fruit and thus can only be cultivated during long periods of stability. Ironically, these symbols of peace are a significant crop in the Middle East, where they are prized for their ability to flourish for hundreds of years despite bad soil and little water. Moreover, the widespread destruction of olive trees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Intifada is a microcosm of the ongoing internecine conflict between Israel and Palestine.

By Rami Sarafa  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

Was the US-led attack on Iraq justified? The question comes from all corners of the globe, and answers are varied. Our collective response should be to cooperate in thoughtfully examining the practical constraints and legal limits to military intervention. The issue is not black-and-white, but multifaceted, and only by addressing it head-on can our international community hope to reach a consensus that will cement genuine autonomous international security for all.

By Bartram S. Brown  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

Humanitarian intervention was supposed to have gone the way of the 1990s. The use of military force across borders to stop mass killing was seen as a luxury of an era in which national security concerns among the major powers were less pressing and problems of human security could come to the fore. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone: these interventions, justified to varying degrees in humanitarian terms, were dismissed as products of an unusual interlude between the tensions of the Cold War and the new threat of terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001, supposedly changed all that by inducing a return to more immediate security challenges.

By Kenneth Roth  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

After witnessing the effects of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, you founded the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC). What is CIVIC’s current mission, and does it have long-term ambitions?

I work with victims of conflict. We do everything we can to get them help. Each person’s situation is different based on their loss, but that is the important thing—they are individual people.

By Marla Ruzicka  |  May 6, 2006
Premium Content

In the wake of nonstop coverage by the broadcast media and “embedded” journalists, a tidal wave of books on Operation Iraqi Freedom is now sweeping US bookstores, even before the dust of major combat operations has settled. Coming hot off the presses are eyewitness accounts of the war and US military operations, assessments of White House policymaking and the conduct of the war, and arguments for and against twenty-fi rst century American imperialism.

By Juan E. Campo  |  May 6, 2006