By Azmi Bishara

While there is no quarrel between mainstream versions of Christianity and Islam, mainstream Christianity is under assault in the United States from right-wing fundamentalist Protestantism, such as that represented by Jerry Falwell.

Typically, the media asked the wrong questions about Jerry Falwell and his recent racist remarks about Islam and the Prophet Mohamed. The issue at hand is not one of dialogue or conflict between Christianity and Islam, since neither religion is uniform and there are many versions of both. Christians in Jordan or Syria are different from those in Poland or Latin America, and both are different from American Protestants. Islam also changes from rural to urban areas, across social classes and over time.

Jerry Farwell's version of Christianity, however, is specific and peculiar, and it is closer, in both tone and substance, to extremist versions of other creeds than it is to Christianity's mainstream churches. The story of Falwell's brand of Christianity goes back to the 17th century, when a number of fundamentalist Protestant sects grew up in the United States, preaching "a return", in letter and spirit, to the Scriptures.

Since Christ and the Apostles did not outline a detailed way of life for their early Christian followers, this being something that was taken up later by St Paul, the New Testament of the Bible reads as a universal message of love and understanding. What the fundamentalist US Protestant sects did was to stress instead the moral code expressed in the Old Testament, extracting from it a detailed schedule of approval and disapproval. The result was an emphasis on austerity and strict morality and a denunciation of what was considered to be the hierarchy and theatricality of Roman Catholicism.

While early US Protestantism was mostly moderate in form, it gave rise to many sects promoting ever- harsher interpretations of Christianity, many of them based on the Old Testament. Some of these sects were anti-Semitic, while others propagated a form of Judeo-Christianity, sharing a common, apocalyptic vision of the future in which the arrival of the Messiah will end the suffering of believers and create a heavenly order on earth. This apocalyptic view of history has also crossed over to Islam, with fundamentalists seeking salvation on earth and not in heaven.

Much of this background is common knowledge, but what is of interest here is how contemporary American fundamentalist Protestants, among them Jerry Falwell, have used pop culture and the mass media in their preaching in a remarkable departure from the calm manners of mainstream Protestantism. Falwell and his fellow US television preachers treat Christianity as a consumer item, marketing it through spectacular staging and TV gimmickry.

Indeed, a new form of Christianity has appeared in America, one that exploits individual isolation and that has benefited from the disintegration of more mainstream Christian congregations. This new form of religion is the spiritual equivalent of self-help groups, offering spiritual guidance at a price that is both financial and political.

We are all familiar with how US television sit-coms cue the audience with recorded laughter in all the right places, producing the effect of shared enjoyment even at the end of a cathode-ray tube. Transfer this device to TV preaching, and the result is the staged histrionics of American fundamentalist Protestantism, a kind of emotional charlatanry that puts to shame the wildest teenage rock concert. Successful American preachers, such as those of Falwell's standing, have been rewarded with considerable money and power.

The US evangelist Billy Graham first took TV preaching to the heights of popular demagoguery in the 1950s, discovering that fire and brimstone sell well if they are aired live and backed with sufficient emotional display. Later, Graham's discoveries were adopted by others, and not just Christians, inside and outside the United States. His caricatural delivery and oversimplified message did much to further the cause of fundamentalists of all brands and creeds.

What could be more tempting to US-based fundamentalist preachers today than attacks on Muslims? The idea of an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil has always been central to the fundamentalist cause, in all such creeds the world being seen in terms of a struggle that will resolve itself in victory for the righteous. All the better if this apocalyptic vision of things can be overlaid with a political message.

The first European settlers in the United States were fond of biblical names, theirs being, at least in part, a search for the promised land and for the kingdom of God on earth. These early settlers were not fond of Judaism, and many of them were fervently anti-Semitic. However, in the 20th century Hollywood, particularly over the past few decades, has managed to twist the US obsession with the Bible into something akin to political Zionism and support for Israel.

While the mainstream Christian churches in the United States are aware of the perils of fundamentalism and demagogic popular preaching, respecting the country's secular tradition and steering a mostly non-political path, far-right Christian fundamentalists constantly lobby US congressmen and the White House to further their beliefs. The time has come for the mainstream churches to try to reverse this trend in the US of politicised Christian fundamentalism, such as that promoted by Graham, Falwell, and the rest. The Arabs, for their part, should be aware of the domestic means by which American Christian fundamentalists are seeking to influence US policy towards Israel.

However, the silence of liberal Jews concerning the determined attempts of the far right to stifle liberalism in America is also odd and worrying. Right- wing Christian fundamentalism is a threat, not just to Arab-Americans, but also to all democratic groups in the United States, and liberal Jews, by maintaining their silence, are allowing US Jewry too to slip into right-wing positions, losing touch with other minority groups in America.

What the Arabs should do to combat the kind of racism promoted by Falwell and other American TV evangelists is to seek closer bonds with other minorities within the United States. In order to do so, they should make further efforts to convince America's other minorities and mainstream Christian churches alike that they are similarly committed to democracy, religious tolerance and secularism in the face of the right-wing Christian fundamentalist threat.

Al-Ahram Weekly, 10/24-30/02

The Bush administration has made Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "an offer he cannot refuse". The options before him are to commit suicide or be liquidated. This has been the thrust of the US administration's policy for resolving the issue of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). What is more alarming is that the policy makes Iraq a convenient test- lab for the US's new security doctrine outlined in "The National Security Strategy of the United States" -- a paper that the White House unveiled last week. If the test is successful, it will mark the beginning of a process to reconfigure the Middle East according to the US's strategic interests as outlined by the paper. Other Arab regimes will be candidates for a declawing, too, under various US national security concerns. History has shown that world wars, and even regional ones, have fostered major geopolitical changes in a manner similar to the way scientists attribute the creation of the universe to the "big bang" theory. Israel will be watching at close range and probably helping to put together the pieces of the new jigsaw puzzle.

The fact is that the Bush administration has never wavered from its goal of unseating President Saddam Hussein. In his statement before the United Nations General Assembly on 12 September, Bush professed the desire to work with the world community to complete the task of disarming Iraq. But he did not disguise the fact that the US considers removing President Saddam Hussein, not his WMD, its most important goal. Nothing else could explain the administration's exasperation after Iraq declared its agreement to the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. It also explains why the US is exercising inordinate pressure on the Security Council to pass a resolution that would impose new and crippling conditions on Iraq prior to the departure of the inspectors. In this way, the administration would have the fig-leaf it needs to fault Iraq and launch a devastating military strike against it on the flimsiest excuse. In one of his many vitriolic attacks against Hussein, President George W Bush said "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Curiously enough, President Bush has admitted in speeches that the US does not know whether Iraq has acquired nuclear or biological weapons. However, the guiding principle of US policy towards Iraq has been "better safe than sorry". Consistent with this line of thinking, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was quite serious when he admonished Hussein to seek exile, with his family, in another country while the opportunity remains.

The following are key features of President Bush's definition of US national security.

1) The US will not allow the military supremacy it has maintained since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, to be equalled or surpassed -- a veiled warning to China.

2) The US will launch pre-emptive strikes against countries that are suspected of developing WMD and which could be perceived as a threat to the US. It will also attack, disrupt and destroy terrorist organisations that have a global reach before they penetrate its borders or those of its allies, in what it calls "proactive counter-proliferation".

3) In its policy of "hot pursuit" of both terrorists and "rogue" states, the US will try to enlist the support of its allies, but failing that, it will not hesitate to act unilaterally. US NATO allies are on notice.

4) The US will support moderate and modern governments, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation.

5) The US will use its influence in international institutions and its aid programmes to support the principle explained in the paper, "people everywhere want to say what they think, choose who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their children -- male and female -- own property and enjoy the benefits of their labor."

In the 35-page document, the regime of President Saddam Hussein, while not mentioned by name, appears to be culpable of every crime, every threat and every violation that the US has to fight in order to defend its strategic national security interests. US senators and congressmen have gone to extremes in describing the mortal danger Iraq poses to the US and its allies.

In as much as the root-causes of terrorism have been dissected and explained, an equal measure of introspection must be extended to President Bush's definition of the US's strategic national security interests. The underlying rationale of the paper suggests that it is framed by the mind-set of 11 September 2001 and its aftermath. The threat of terrorism, and the abiding fear that WMD will someday be used by terrorists against the American people, is a national concern. The paper starts with the premise that the United States, being the world's unchallenged supreme military power, should exercise its power proactively and in a pre-emptive manner. In revealing his thinking prior to the publication of the document, President Bush told cadets of West Point military academy in a speech on 1 June, "If we wait for threats to fully materialise, we will have waited too long."

In the US analysis, the terrorists that committed the heinous acts of 11 September were spawned by a fertile ground of repressive political regimes and extremist religious dogmas. Weak political structures, lack of freedom of speech and democratic practices and extreme poverty would serve to constitute violence and terrorism. The paper also strongly endorses the long- standing perception of terrorism as an abstract evil that could not be justified in any way or given credit under any circumstances.

This is not the first time the US has considered a strategy of pre-emptive strikes. It should be recalled that in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson, then US president, considered the option of a pre-emptive military strike against China to prevent it from deploying nuclear weapons. He later dropped the idea. At the peak of the Cold War, US policy towards the former Soviet Union was based on the strategy of containment and deterrence. President Bush's definition of how to secure US national strategic interests is so far the most aggressive, difficult and dangerous course of action proposed by any US president, including Ronald Reagan.

The may US faces difficulties owing to the likelihood that its allies will not always see eye-to-eye on every conceivable threat or perceived "clear and present danger" that authorises the US President to go to war. Again, Iraq is a case in point. With the exception of the Labour government of Tony Blair, which has always followed the shadow of US foreign policy, other NATO allies have varying strategic interests that are strongly influenced by regional considerations and tactical balances. More often than not, the US will probably be faced with the prospect of taking unilateral action -- an option that would lead to increasing isolation within its own Western alliance.

The new strategic interest concept is dangerous because it provides other powerful countries with a licence to interpret freely threats to their national strategic interests and act on them with pre-emptive military strikes. Israel did exactly that when it launched a pre-emptive strike to destroy Iraq's Ozirak nuclear reactor in 1981. It may well, at some point, seek to create a convenient environment to justify and launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. The US will have little problem with Israel's free-wheeling definition of the threats to its national security, including those allegedly coming from the defenceless Palestinian people it is murdering. In volatile south Asia, India or Pakistan might be impressed by the possibility of using the same approach to their own advantage. Additionally, the US's document gives little clue to how it would deal with changing situations such as the assumption of power in Pakistan by a regime hostile to the US or if the unstable Middle East geopolitical situation were to change in a way that could threaten US oil interests in the region -- an overriding strategic consideration in the US's global policy. How the US will deal with undemocratic regimes, traditional forms of authority and human rights violations in the region are also big question marks.

President Saddam Hussein's best option would, consequently, seem to be to attempt to take the wind out of the US military sails by cooperating fully with the team of inspectors. In this way he would build up sympathy for his country which also translates into increasing opposition to US military action against it. The game of "hide and seek in Iraq" will have to end. The silver lining is that President Hussein's compliance would also dampen Israel's incitement to yet another war against the suffering people of Iraq.

* The writer is a former corespondent for Al-Ahram in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.

Al-Ahram Weekly, 10/24-30/02

US special envoy William Burns is in the region armed with a "roadmap" that supposedly leads to peace. It is likely to go nowhere.

US special envoy William Burns arrived in Israel and the occupied territories this week in pretty bleak circumstances, even by the dismal standards set by past American "special envoys".

Palestinians are still reeling from a series of Israeli military offensives that have left 51 of their people dead in the last two weeks, 15 of them children. Gaza has borne the lion's share of these assaults, with the latest being a tank and bulldozer invasion into Rafah on Wednesday morning. Twenty-three Palestinians were wounded in the thrust, and three buildings destroyed, including the home of a "suicide bomber".

Israelis too are bloodied from an Islamic Jihad bus bombing that killed 16 and wounded 60 in northern Israel on Monday, the highest death toll from an attack inside Israel since June. In what so far has been an unusually "restrained" response, the army tightened its grip on the West Bank, shelved plans for a partial pullback from Hebron and demolished homes in Nablus, Salem and Hebron.

Few Palestinians believe these will be the only reprisals. But they suspect greater punishments will come once Burns is out of the country.

Away from the attrition waged "in the field", there is the attrition that will be joined over the meaning and substance of the "roadmap" Burns has brought with him to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict within the optimistic timeline of three years.

Based on George Bush's "vision" of a Palestinian state -- and with inputs from the European Union, UN and Russia -- the road is mapped to reach a "provisional" Palestinian state in 2003 and a final status agreement by 2005.

According to accounts published in the Israeli press, "phase A" will require the Palestinian Authority calling for an end to the "armed Intifada", reorganising their police forces into a unitary command and resuming "security cooperation" with Israel. Israel is expected to dismantle "illegal" settlement outposts and end its punitive actions in Palestinian areas, including the invasions, house demolitions and land devastation.

One commentator likened the roadmap to "Oslo minus Arafat". It will probably suffer the same fate as both.

Ariel Sharon has already said he won't countenance any "concession" on Israel's part unless it is "conditioned on determined [Palestinian] action against terror and incitement". The Palestinians say there can be no "action" without an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities and villages, and that no political process is viable without an immediate and unconditional freeze on Israel's settlement construction.

It will be interesting to see how Burns squares the circle of those two positions. The safest bet is that he won't even try. Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has said Israel is unlikely to make substantive comments on the plan until December -- and six weeks is an age in the West Bank and Gaza.

Nor is it clear how the roadmap will square with the "reforms" Yasser Arafat is currently making to his government. In a clear ruse to kick the Palestinian leader out of power --if not yet out of the West Bank -- the plan wants the PA to appoint a prime minister and parliamentary elections only to be held sometime next year.

Arafat wants presidential elections to strengthen his legitimacy in the eyes of the world and has ruled that no prime minister will be nominated "until after the establishment of a Palestinian state". He is also putting in place a cabinet that will back him on both demands.

Leaked in the Palestinian press on Wednesday -- and if in any way accurate -- the PA's new cabinet marks a colossal victory for Fatah's "old guard" in its long tussle with its young, whose parliamentary led revolt in September brought about the collapse of Arafat's original government.

Save for the replacement of Abdul-Razek Yahyia by veteran Fatah leader Hani Al-Hassan at the Interior Ministry -- and the reported removal of Jamil Tarifi at Civil Affairs -- the new 19-member government makes no accommodation to the demands of the parliamentarians. In the past, Fatah deputies have vowed they will vote no confidence again if ministerial changes are not "commensurate" with the reforms required.

Arafat will be meeting them over the next few days to persuade them that "commensurateness" has been reached. He intends formally to present the cabinet to the parliament next week, said Speaker Ahmed Qrei on Tuesday.

Few Palestinians in any case are now taking the "reform process" seriously. They know that in the garrison realities of the occupied territories no elections of any stripe will occur in January, and probably not for a long time thereafter. So does Israel, so do the Americans and so, actually, do the other members of the Quartet.

All are aware that Burn's roadmap is a train parked at a station. It won't move until the question of Iraq is settled. And by then both the road to peace and the map of the region may be changed beyond all recognition

While the US and Britain squabbled with other members of the Security Council and international community about a new resolution automatically sanctioning military action against Iraq if it does not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, in Cairo more attention was being given to the dismal state of affairs in the Palestinian territories. Hosting several world leaders and American envoys this week, Egypt was encouraged that the diplomatic Quartet was brainstorming on a concrete road map meant to end the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis within three years. As for the matter of an attack on Iraq, Egypt continued to emphasise that the world must stand unanimous under the umbrella of the UN.

During their meeting on 16 October, President Hosni Mubarak and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac saw eye-to-eye on all issues regarding tensions in the Middle East. France's position on Iraq is that the UN Security Council resolution dealing with the return of weapons inspectors is sufficient for the time being. If the inspectors find that their job is being hindered by the Iraqi authorities, France says it would then seek a second Security Council resolution sanctioning military action against Iraq. "The Council should have the freedom to take a decision when the time comes," said Chirac. "This region does not need a new war." Standing by his side at a joint news conference, Mubarak agreed that all options must be pursued before a decision is taken to go to war against Iraq, "in order for public opinion to be convinced that there was no other choice".

But the Americans want a resolution which automatically sanctions strikes if Baghdad is uncooperative with weapons inspectors -- without the need for further deliberations in the Security Council, or a new resolution. General Tommy Franks, who directs US military operations across the Middle East and Central Asia -- and who would thus lead any attack on Iraq -- was in Cairo on Tuesday for talks with Mubarak. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Franks said the leaders he met on his six-nation tour (which also included Turkey, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan) recognised that war was a possibility. He said that "it seems to me that all these nations are being very thoughtful in consultations and in discussions, because we all recognise the possibility of military operations." But he would not characterise any one nation as being "enthusiastic or not" about providing the United States a staging point for strikes on Iraq.

Arab countries oppose a unilateral strike by the US and Britain, and would only support UN-led action against Baghdad. In an attempt to allay concern that war is at the Middle East's doorstep, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns said on Saturday that "war is not imminent [but], it's not inevitable." Burns was talking to reporters in Cairo after meeting with Mubarak as part of a 12- nation tour. Burns said that Washington wants to work with the UN Security Council "to the maximum extent possible" in disarming Iraq, and that Baghdad must be in full compliance. "The bottom line is that the international community must see Iraqi compliance with its obligations," he noted.

The next day, Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said that any military attack against Iraq would not only destabilise the region, but "will only confirm the prevailing feeling that there is a premeditation to direct attacks against Arabs and Muslims, especially in light of continued Israeli aggression".

Meanwhile, Burns denied that the standoff with Iraq was overshadowing US interest and efforts in the peace process, saying that his country was "absolutely committed to doing everything that we can on the Palestinian issue and on the broader Arab-Israeli issue. We recognise its significance, and we are determined to do everything we can, particularly in this period, where there's a real sense of urgency."

Burns said that Washington was determined "to realise the vision of two states" for Palestinians and Israelis, and that the diplomatic Quartet (which consists of the US, the EU, Russia and the UN) are trying to develop the elements of "a concrete road map" to work with in the coming three years. He stressed that both sides have obligations if progress is to be made in stabilising the situation, and "renew[ing] hope." With Mubarak, Burns discussed the proposed road map, and said that the US will "lean heavily on the critical role that Egypt plays in this region" to bring about stability.

Nonetheless, Egyptian officials declined to offer an assessment of the road map, sufficing to say that they conveyed their observations and remarks on the proposals to the US envoy. "The road map proposed by the US requires a large amount of scrutiny into the issues it contains," Maher said on Sunday, while attending the Francophone summit in Beirut. The most important element in the paper, according to Egyptian officials, is that it should be balanced in terms of the demands it places upon the Palestinians and Israelis, and that each side should be implementing their obligations in parallel. "It is inconceivable to place demands upon the Palestinians to implement all of their obligations and then turn to the Israelis to see whether or not they will implement [their obligations]," Maher noted.

Burns' tour, which began in Egypt, came at the heels of a Quartet meeting in Paris on Friday, where the parties discussed how to bring to life the Quartet's three-phase approach -- announced last month -- which would result in the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. "I think we're making good progress," said Burns. "I think there is a strong consensus emerging among the Quartet members, and we're going to continue to work intensively on that."

While in Cairo on Sunday, Italian President Carlo Ciampi said that there is a dire need to revive the peace process in order to reduce tensions in the region. Ciampi was speaking to reporters after talks with Mubarak, and added that aggression, bombing and Israeli occupation of Palestinian land must come to an end. "Negotiations must result in a Palestinian state and also guarantee the security of Israel," he said.

Earlier in the week, Chirac had described what was taking place on the ground in the Palestinian territories as "very regretful". He said that the Palestinians and Israelis are living a state of war, "and there is no military solution for two people to co-exist. There must be negotiations and a political solution".

France suggested the convening of an international conference to that end, "because peace will only come about through dialogue, not weapons," according to Chirac. Mubarak was sceptical because he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "does not listen to anyone", adding that 80 attacks were carried out against Israel during his tenure because "the violence and killing under Sharon's government is unprecedented." Mubarak also said that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Sharon "cannot stand each other, and their people are paying the price."