[Mb-civic] A truce with Muslims - Mark LeVine - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  A truce with Muslims

By Mark LeVine  |  January 26, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

THE NEWLY RELEASED tape of Osama bin Laden marks the second time in two 
years that the Al Qaeda leader has offered a ''truce" to the West in the 
war on terror in return for various changes in policy toward the Muslim 
world, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia.

Quite rightly, bin Laden's truce offers have been rejected by European 
and American leaders alike. But while rejecting the messenger, Americans 
would be wrong to dismiss the idea of a truce with the Muslim world, 
even with radical Islam.

A truce does not equal capitulation to terrorists or letting Muslims off 
the hook for crimes committed in the name of religion. Criminals such as 
bin Laden and his terrorist colleagues can no more offer a truce than 
could Al Capone or Pablo Escobar; they are murderers whom the world 
community must bring to justice.

But states, and even communities and cultures, can make truces. And in 
so doing they can make demands of the other side that are crucial to 
resolving the conflicts that spawned the violence a truce is meant to stop.

There is ample precedent for this kind of truce in Islam. The prophet 
Mohammed agreed to the first Muslim truce in 628. Known as the Treaty of 
Hudaybiyah, it was between the nascent Muslim community and the Meccan 
pagans, and lasted for two years before being broken by the Meccans.

More recently, during the past three decades, an increasingly permanent 
Muslim presence in Europe has led Muslims to consider that region not as 
dar al-harb (the Abode of War, the traditional Muslim categorization of 
all non-Muslim lands), but rather as dar al-hudna, a land of truce, and 
even dar al-Islam, a land of peace. Despite the growing sense of 
alienation among many young Muslims, religiously inspired violence is 
still the rare exception among Europe's 12 million Muslims.

What would a Muslim-American truce consist of? On the American side, it 
must begin with an admission of how much US policies have violated our 
country's founding ideals. For Muslims, the psychological impact of 
hearing us own up to the significant pain our policies have caused to 
their societies would be hard to overestimate.

Second, the United States and NATO should halt all offensive military 
actions in the Muslim world and outline a plan for the removal of troops 
from all Muslim countries. We may be trying to kill Al Qaeda's second in 
command, Ayman al-Zawahri, but it's hard to argue with his claim that 
''there will never be peace" as long as the United States occupies 
Muslim countries and supports corrupt and authoritarian regimes.

Third, the hunt for bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and related terror networks 
must be transformed from a perpetual state of war into what it always 
should have been: a vigorous international effort to apprehend, 
prosecute, and punish those involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and 
similar assaults.

Finally, military and nonhumanitarian aid to all Middle Eastern 
countries that are not democratic or don't respect the rights of the 
people under their control should be suspended. Yes, this means Israel; 
but also Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other so-called 
''moderate" American allies. Such a step is crucial to stopping the 
regional arms race, systematic oppression, and cycle of violence that 
together make peace and democratic reform impossible.

As the weaker party, the Muslim world might have less to offer, but its 
obligations would be no less important than those of the other side. 
They would include, first, owning up to the incredible damage that 
terrorism has done to its victims, and a commitment to use nonviolent 
methods to pursue the often well-justified opposition to policies of 
their own and other governments. Second, Muslim leaders must recognize 
that the continual Israel-, Jew- and US-bashing that defines much of the 
political discourse in the Muslim world is as ugly and immoral as it is 
inaccurate and unhelpful.

Finally, both sides must commit to making the Middle East a nuclear-free 
region as the cornerstone of any commitment to stop the violence.

Sadly, neither the Bush administration, with its Manichaean world view, 
unwillingness to admit mistakes or compromise, and commitment to 
''full-spectrum dominance" of the region, nor most autocratic and 
corrupt Muslim leaders have an interest in calling a truce in a war that 
is the foundation of their power. That means it's up to the millions of 
citizens of the US and Muslim world to call our own truce and begin a 
much-needed discussion about how to heal our increasingly fragile 
planet. The alternative is a long and ultimately catastrophic conflict 
between the West and the Muslim world, exactly what Osama bin Laden had 
in mind on Sept. 11, 2001.

Mark LeVine, who teaches modern Middle Eastern history, culture, and 
Islamic studies at the University of California, Irvine, is the author 
of ''Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/26/a_truce_with_muslims/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060126/7baa91f3/attachment.htm