|
Whoa, there's a lot of generalizing there. Many people don't hate US, they hate our government and distinguish the difference. France is a good example.
Dubai is not exactly a bastion of humanitarianism or equality. Turkey is 50-50 on their perception of Americans. The gov't likes the US support for the EU but the people don't really like Americans (or Westerners). I was there last summer - 2005 during the two terrorist attacks. But some Turks were always telling me how much they disliked George Bush but were friendly enough to me (or at least my money). Egypt is also bipolar when it comes to America. I had many interesting discussions with Egyptians this summer when I was there. It seems more of them hate their own government (Mubarak) than they do Americans. But then again, there was this huge demonstration in Cairo when I was there and people were burning US and Israeli flags. Also this veil of tension between Egyptians and foreigners. It is unwise to monolithically think of places such as Turkey and Lebanon as "quite harmless". Lebanon is definitely not a friendly place towards Americans, especially when they are launching rockets and attacks into Israel forcing retaliation. Jerusalem is a crap shoot. When I was there, there was a stabbing of an American tourist in the Old City, a block from where I was staying. Jerusalem, as beautiful as it is, is a city that is rife with tension.
There is no magic solution. There needs to be effort and work involved by all parties to make it work. A lot of the problem with temporary peace or cease-fires is that is just takes one a-hole to do something stupid and it sets off the whole region again. This kind of tit-for-tat, left to its own devices will be never ending. In other words, another, pragmatic compromise must be reached in order for there to be progress. There can be no zero-sum otherwise the situation will be a failure. EX: cessation of hostilities backed by real socio-economic reform etc etc (I know easier said than done).
To be clear, on the issue of terrorism, there are many different types. In the case of Bin Laden, he is classified as a catastrophic terrorist, that is, his primary goal or function is for your destruction. They are also known as non-negotiable terrorists because, for obvious reasons, you can't negotiate with them. Simply leaving the Middle East will not cause OBL to cease his acts of terrorism. He wants to eradicate our way of life, period. In his mind, there is no such thing as an innocent party. You are either a devout adherent Muslim (believer and follower of Allah), or you aren't and therefor need to meet your demise. In this case, nothing short of "annihilation" of this type of terrorist will end their violence. Hamas also falls into this category.
The other type of terrorist is political terrorist. That is a group that uses terrorism as an instrument for political gain, usually autonomy or independence etc. The PLO(previous) and IRA fall into this category. They are specific entities with the stated objective of political independence and have functioning political organs along with their militarized ones. Terrorism just happens to be one of their methods in an attempt to achieve their goals. In this case, negotiations or compromise is possible and even desirable. Here, socio-economic plans or incentives can be useful in achieving the overarching objective of peace or coexistence.
Other possibilities to end the tit-for-tat style of revenge and avenge violence could be South Africa's Remorse and Forgiveness campaign. While not exact analogues, it could provide a base model to create a new framework to end the violence.
|