http://www.michaeltotten.com/2009/12/quote-of-the-day-5.phpIn a constitutional democracy, those elected to office are obviously as prone as everyone else to follow misconceived policies, to make miscalculations and self-serving errors; but over a period of time this will become evident and even scandalous, and representative institutions will oblige them to pay the price of losing an election and therefore office. No such correction is possible for the Arab power holder or challenger, whose miscalculations and self-serving errors must be worked through to the bitter end, which more often than not is his death.
From The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs by David Pryce-Jones.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/2009/12/quote-of-the-day-6.php Why has the Arab world found it so hard to challenge and revise its own disproven assumptions and failed policies? The key to this apparent mystery is hidden in the issue of who is to be blamed for this unhappy history and pessimistic outlook. The overwhelmingly dominant answer in the Arab world and Iran has been to attribute responsibility to the United States, Israel, and traitorous—because they are insufficiently radical—rulers at home. The outpouring of anti-Americanism, both before and after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on America, reflected this overall assessment that the United States was to blame for everything that had gone wrong in the Middle East.
But if America is responsible, of course, that means Pan-Arab nationalism, Islamist radicalism, dictatorship, badly run and rigidly statist economies, strategies rejoicing in violence and terror, and a media system dominated by propaganda have nothing to do with the Arab failure to prosper and progress. If these internal factors are irrelevant—or lacking only a more courageous and consistent application of the correct principles—then nothing needs to be altered. Yet if these things remain unchanged, the Arab world will continue to lurch from one embarrassment or defeat to another.
Those in the West who agree with the assessment that outside oppression is the true roadblock for Arabs and Muslims think that they are nobly helping the Middle East's people against their enemies. Echoing their views and explaining their grievances is expected to persuade the West to understand the Middle East and then to change its ways, thus solving the problem. Anyone who disagrees is said to be merely an apologist for imperialism and Zionism whose work does not deserve to be read and whose analysis need not be considered.
In fact, though, these "pro-Arab" forces are reinforcing the Arabs' and Muslims' worse possible enemy: the unwillingness to confront the real issues and problems that have caused so many disasters and kept them from achieving more progress. At any rate, such arguments will never convince Western leaders or citizens, because they clearly do not conform to reality. The principle problem is not that the West misunderstands the Middle East, but rather that the Middle East misunderstands both the West and itself.
From The Tragedy of the Middle East by Barry Rubin.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/01/quote-of-the-day-7.phpThe notion that societies in crisis have no choice but to leap forward is an arbitrary judgment. In our age this notion is fostered by the liberal imagery of stages of growth and evolution and the Marxist imagery of revolutionary transformations. But the temptation to retreat into one's own tradition in a moment of historical stress can be far more powerful than the tendency to leap into uncharted territory.
From The Arab Predicament by Fouad Ajami
http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/01/quote-of-the-day-8.phpRadical Islam's obsession with covering women's hair is a new phenomenon. In 1981, Abol-Hassan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, announced that scientific research had shown that women's hair emits rays that drive men insane with lust. To protect the public, the new regime passed legislation in 1982 making the new form of hijab mandatory for all females above six years of age, regardless of religious faith. Violating the hijab code is punishable by one hundred lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment. By the mid-1980s, a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard headgear for millions of Muslim women all over the world, including Europe and North America. Many younger women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab is an essential part of the Islamic faith.
Muslim women anywhere in the world could easily see the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by going through their family albums: they will not find a single picture of a female ancestor who wore the cursed headgear now imposed upon them as an absolute "must" of Islam. This fake Islamic hijab is thus nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism; it is a symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam, and is designed to promote gender apartheid. And yet this prop of visual terror was presented by Khomeinist ideologues as a fundamental value—as "a pillar of Islamic existence," and as "our most effective weapon against the enemies of Islam," according to Rafsanjani. One well-known female Khomeinist wrote, "The superpowers know that hijab is the foundation of Islamic government and that to conquer the Persian Gulf and plunder its oil resources, they must first eliminate hijab."
To counter the Islamist claim that the hijab blocks the dangerous, lust-provoking rays emanating from a woman's hair, some women have proposed other forms of hijab. One Iranian designer came out with a wig made of horsehair, thus ensuring that a woman's own hair remains hidden while she still "looks like a normal human being." Some Iranian actresses suggested they be allowed to appear in plays and films wearing wigs made of animal hair. The French cosmetics firm L'Oreal tried to market a transparent hijab that would show a woman's hair but keep its "dangerous rays" locked in. The Khomeinists would have none of it; they wanted women to be seen in public in a state of submission.
From The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution by Amir Taheri.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/01/quote-of-the-day-9.phpAppeasement is much harder to accomplish than it seems. It is not just a matter of saying to the stronger side, There you go, have what you want, it’s all yours, just sign on the dotted line. The appeaser much accomplish two crucial tasks.
First, the appeaser must, to the greatest extent possible, disguise the fact that he is appeasing. He must portray himself as a peacemaker, as a man who has prevented or ended a war on decent terms. That is why, for example, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, returning from Munich after handing a chunk of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, said in an address from Downing Street on the evening of September 30, 1938, that he had achieved “peace with honor,” and that, as a thankful result, everyone should “go home and get a nice quiet sleep.” He had not appeased; he had kept the peace. Now go to sleep, go to sleep…
Second, the appeaser much persuade the victim to cooperate. Chamberlain was fortunate in this case, because Edvard Benes, the president of Czechoslovakia, had no visible alternative to surrendering the Sudetenland; his small country could not resist a German blitzkrieg, especially if Britain was on Germany’s side. As a result, Chamberlain was able to present the carve-up of Czechoslovakia as a sort of diplomatic euthanasia that the victim agreed to. He was lucky. If the victim resists, the appeaser is in a bind, because euthanasia turns into murder, and, instead of being a benevolent guide, soothing the victim as it is put to sleep, the appeaser must hold down the screaming victim as the terminal injection is administered. It is a very nasty business.
From Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War by Peter Maass.