Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
Kip, your 1:100 sets up a false dichotomy of "two diametrically opposed belief systems" between what Fred and I were trying to say. I was arguing that "Organized Religions are not properly merged with political power," and Fred was arguing that God should be "brought back into the [Iranian] world-view and be given a proper role." I agree with Fred, and also with myself.

Ray (1:103) has it right. The two statements are not only "potentially compatible," as he says, but are two parts of the same thought: that spiritual ideas inherently are part of governance, but getting Organized Religion mixed into government brings into the political process mostly the "Organized" (that is, the political) part and too little of the "Religion" part of "Organized Religion."

God, or what I've just called "spiritual ideas," is (as Ray is saying) a pluralistic source of inspiration. But it does connote what Ray calls "a sense of authority beyond anything attributable to mankind," and provides the underpinning for "ethical standards."

These must be central to governance, not only of "the government" but of other large aggregations of power such as corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and "civil society" in general. (We have recently seen all too many examples of leaders who ignore or dismiss spiritual insight and regard ethics as something for a staff ethicist to worry about.)

So let's get clearly in our minds the distinction between Religion (which too often implies the adjective "Organized"), and spirituality (which implies the individual's relationship with God). Stirring them together produces a mishmash that leads too many people to (citing Ray's 1:103 again) equate God with Organized Religion.

Participant
Harlan: To use a phrase which we found very helpful in our past discussion on abortion: WHAT I DON'T UDERSTAND ABOUT YOUR FOLLOWING QUOTE:

"So let's get clearly in our minds the distinction between Religion (which too often implies the adjective "Organized"), and spirituality (which implies the individual's relationship with God). Stirring them together produces a mishmash that leads too many people to (citing Ray's 1:103 again) equate God with Organized Religion" is the following:

You and I, and other rational superior types like the members of ILF, are surely capable of getting "clearly in our minds the distinction" between religion and spirituality. But many of the highly superior people who participated in our abortion discussions were unable to accept that distinction.

It was only until we moved away from abortion and its religious connotations as the issue and agreed to discuss the impacts of various strategies removed from the spiritually loaded religious concept of abortion that we were able to reach clearer understanding of the issues and come to a partial agreement.

Can you give us examples from your rich experience when this distinction was accepted and clearly kept in the minds of negotiators who were also advocates of organized and opposing religious sets of beliefs? It would also be interesting to hear how you accomplished this. How were you able to get this "clearly in the minds" of all the participants?

Participant
Harlan, you're probably right that I have set up a false dichotomy, but I have re-read Fred's comment, and he doesn't even mention Iran. He mentions Muslims and Islam. If I have misunderstood him, I apologize. Nonetheless, a frequent criticism made by Islam of the West is that it is Godless. Islam (or at any rate its traditional expression) seems to believe that religion must be part of government, and not just some sort of 'spirituality'.

Would you agree that

1. there are large numbers of people (in both camps) who believe that organized religion should be part of government and large numbers of people (in both camps) who believe that it shouldn't

2. These are mutually exclusive viewpoints

3. Negotiation between 2 such opposed viewpoints is simply a less violent form of competition with each side seeking maximum advantage for its own view

Donald, I don't think that either philosophy will resolve the controversy, because the controversy is the inevitable result of there being 2 diametrically opposed philosophies. That the philosophies exist is the framework, the arena in which we have to work.

Participant
Don: I'm reluctant to get into the abortion issue in this context -- except to say that what we're discussing here is precisely about the role of Organized Religion in public policy, so I find it difficult to leave it aside, "move away" from it.

I don't need to plumb the depths of my experience to show the wisdom of the Founders' concept about separating Church and State. But my memory does retrieve an apposite example. In the early 1960s Adlai Stevenson with the State Department's support proposed to President Kennedy that the UN should have a population program. We persisted in the face of the unanimous opinion of JFK's White House staff that the idea would never fly, since the President was a Roman Catholic. We made our presentation; Kennedy looked around the Oval Office meeting, which contained several of the staff that had been telling us No, and made new policy in two words: "Why not?" The subtext of his decision was that if the idea made sense as U.S. policy, the fact that an Organized Religion might have a different opinion couldn't be the determining factor.

Participant
Kip: I won't pretend to be an expert on either Islam or the Mideast. But I think you should take a closer look at your declaration (1:107) that "Islam . . . seems to believe that religion must be part of government...."

Certainly the dominant interpreters of Islam, in Iran and some other places, hold strongly to that view, which helps to put them in charge of the whole secular apparatus of government. But the governors of many other "Muslim countries," from the more tolerant Indonesians to Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, haven't historically considered that the clerics should be in charge. Is it so clear that all those who profess "Islam," the religious faith that traces its roots to Mohammed (and preceding Prophets) and the Koran, want clerically dominated states?

By the way, you denigrate my emphasis on (what I've called elsewhere) "unorganized spirituality" -- the faith in God of a quarter or more of the US adult population -- by calling it "just some sort of spirituality" (your 1:107).

That's OK; we're still a free country with room for plural opinions. But you shouldn't assume that "spirituality" that lacks hierarchies and anointed leaders is not also a valid search for Truth and God -- with, incidentally, less temptation to rule their fellow-citizens in God's name.

Participant
Harlan: my experience with the abortion discussion and yours with Pres Kennedy would, in my opinion, indicate when there is strong evidence that when some agreed solution is of top priority to both parties, there is evidence that leaders of both parties will put in escrow a strict following of their religion.

Another example I can cite is in the field of commercial arbitration. For a long time, many of the Muslim nations would not accept international arbitration governed by the UN rules -- arguing that the Koran should govern. Increasingly in recent years this obstacle to international commercial dispute resolution has been overcome.

In our stressed world, such accommodations in the interest of peace are both more frequent and more urgent. As I read your 108 and 109 I am encouraged to think you feel the same.

Participant
Harlan, I hope you will accept my sincere apology for my sloppy choice of words. It was not my intent, in any way to denigrate your statement. I will make an effort in future to be more careful in selecting my words. I agree separation between government and religion is important, and that spiritual ideas can inherently be part of governance - even without Organized Religion.

Iran overthrew its secular government in favor of a religious one, In Afghanistan the Taliban imposed religious order. Hussein cloaked his government in the trappings of Islam. Bin Laden and the Al Quaeda network oppose secular governments throughout the Muslin world. In Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, etc. the uprisings, riots, terrorist attacks are done in the name of religion and Holy War, and seek to replace secular governments with religion dominated ones. The secular governments of Turkey and Egypt are under constant pressure from Islamic fundamentalists. The secular governments of many countries are able to remain in power only because of military dominance.

Dan, in the brief section that opens this conference says In the Islamist view, Western style secular democracy brings with it a dangerous pluralism of moral values, especially with regard to the family, sexual mores and the role of women. Islamists see this "moral laxity" as the worst kind of threat to their vision of an Islam revitalized through a return to purity and strict adherence to the high moral and religious standards of shariah, especially in the domain of what we call "family values."

I have previously suggested in various conferences that these conflicts may not truly be about religion, but simply about power and who has it. That idea has always met with resistance in the conferences.

I don't have, Harlan, even the tiniest bit of experience in these matters compared to you, so please accept my words not as points of argument, but as a real desire on my part to understand. How can we hope to formulate effective policy if we can't get clear for ourselves on the following: Is the role of religion in government a significant aspect of the conflict? Or is it simply being used as a weapon by those who seek personal power and status?

Participant
Well, I don't want to get wounded in the crossfire. But . . .

Kip, I agree completely "that these conflicts may not truly be about religion, but simply about power and who has it."

The small disagreement that I see in the above comments rests, I think, on interpretations of the word "religion". In what I have been saying (and Harlan, too, I think) personal ethics that are based on religion have an important place in government. The fact that the values/rules are based on religion is hardly relevant; the important thing is that the values are personally held and the "rules" are set either by law or by personal conscience.

What we have been calling "organized religion" has leaders selected by the religious polity of the organizations -- whatever they may be -- and has no place in a democratic government, precisely because of the way the leaders are chosen.

I suspect that there will be little disagreement about these points. The problem is, I think, that lay-people, for the most part, feel a need for order, structure, and minimal ambiguity. In many Islamic societies, they get these from their religious leaders -- and they learn to depend upon them.

In many societies -- most Islamic, orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics among them -- people have not been taught, nor accustomed, to taking personal responsibility for their ethical and moral standards. That makes it hard for them to accept leadership from those they see as uncertain, ambiguous, or non-conforming to the ethical and moral declarations of the leaders of their organized religions.

Would we expect otherwise?

Participant
Ray, that is clear, I was using religion in the context of Organized Religion - for the sake of brevity, and in the same sense pointing to the conflict between Organized Religion playing a role in government and being excluded from such a role.

Is that conflict something that needs to be addressed seriously if we want to reduce terrorism?

Participant
In Dan's wording, should he continue to refer to the "war on terror" as if to accept the concept? Does anyone in this conference believe that we should think of it as a war, or recognize our invasion of Iraq as a legitimate part of a war on terrorism, or consider a war on terrorism winnable? Doesn't our very acceptance of Bush's terminology guarantee our failure? I prefer Dan's phrase, curbing Islamist terrorism. When we let Bush get away with his use of the term terrorist to apply to those guerrilla Iraqis holding out against our invasion, we steer ourselves onto paths that are self-defeating. How we name things is crucially important.

The back and forth continues in Israel--assassinations and suicide bombings. Does anyone in this conference believe that Israel is handling this situation productively? Or that the Palestinians will give up their militancy before the Israelis back off?

Does anyone think that the Islamists can be dealt with without first dealing differently with Israel? Does anyone think that either political party in the US will alter our policies with respect to Israel?

Dan is approaching this goal of reducing terrorism in a most radical way, but so far he has not dealt with the key issue of Israel. I'm sure he intends to in his overall report. What should he say?

Participant
Dick: both Islam and Israel have long and genuine reasons for not trusting each other. As you point out, wording is crucially important and your bias against Israel is evident. I also think that Bush's prejudices FOR Israel have also been evident.

In my view, neither side can be judged as rational people -- what each have been through has produced a breed of our species that is as mentally sick as can be. We need to address their problems with the same understanding we try to exercise in a psychiatric ward. Prejudices pro and con mentally unbalanced people have never been effective.

Even with goodwill -- a very rare concept in Israel and Palestine -- finding a solution that provides enough space, water, and resources for everyone is a tough assignments even with the most sophisticated planning and willingness to understand the "other side". My bias -- and of course we all have some -- is the lack of generosity on the part of other Islam nations in the area to help provide some additional space and resources for Palestinians.

The best article I have seen on the subject was by Avram Burg in the Sat/Sun Sept 6-7 International Herald Tribune, A FAILED ISRAELI SOCIETY IS COLLAPSING. I won't try to paraphrase it, but the following short quote is a sample:

"What the (Israeli) prime minister should say to the (both sides) is to present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions, barbed wire roadblocks and suicide bombers -- or a recognized international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem. -- But there is no prime minister in Jerusalem. The disease eating away at the body of Zionism has already attacked the head. --- This is a time for clear alternatives. Anyone who declines to present a clear cut position is in effect collaborating in the decline."

Participant
Don, we both agree with Avram Burg. My frustration is with the US. Our continuing one-sided support for Israel in that conflict, turning a blind eye to their travesties, is an international scandal, and should be. Its centrality to the "war on terror" is largely ignored by our leaders. That is not the fault of Bush only, but practically every US president and politician for most of the last century. In the US it is essentially undiscussable. I'm afraid that may be true in this conference as well.

In the seventies, when I was president of the International Design Conference in Aspen, we held a meeting in Jerusalem with architects, designers, social scientists and assorted artists and intellectuals. At that visit I found so much extraordinary talent, excitement, progress and beauty. But even then there was a national effort to disable the Palestinians, and I was disappointed to find the architects and others collaborating in this effort.

I dislike Sharon, and all he stands for, and am sorry that so many Israelis support him. But, in my estimation, it is we who are most at fault for not only being unwilling to use our power and resources to establish peace in that area, but for actually worsening matters by our unilateral support for Israel. We should be able to take great pride in our contribution to the building of that impressive nation, but it has been accomplished at the expense of the Palestinians, and that is something of which we should be ashamed.

Since we are at war with Iraq, I, and many others around the world, find the justification of that war based on Iraq's behavior to be quite interesting when compared to the behavior of Israel. From continued ignoring of many UN resolutions, to the secret development of nuclear weapons (including the actual building of a fake control panel in a nuclear facility to deceive inspectors), to Sharon's leading of a massacre in Lebanon, to invading neighboring states, to a history of terrorism (Prime Minister Begin was a "terrorist" with the Irgun) we have continued to look the other way. Please understand that I do not equate Iraq with Israel, or Saddam with Sharon, or dictatorships with democracies, or cruel despots with Israeli leadership. (For that matter, almost the same list of transgressions can be applied to the behavior of the US--forcing the natives off their land, a country born in terrorism, stiffing the UN, invading other nations, secretly developing weapons of mass destruction, etc.) What bothers me is that we cannot explore these issues without the terrible risk (for politicians, the career-ending risk) of being considered anti-Semitic. As a result, millions of Palestinians live with utter hopelessness. What in the world makes us think that they will give up suicide bombing before they are given hope?

Don, I find heartening your balanced view, and compassionate response to both sides. I agree that the ordeal both sides have been through has left them psychologically disabled. I have never before heard anyone suggest that our approach to either side should be more psychiatric than political or military--a most interesting idea.

With respect to your wish that other Muslim states would absorb the Palestinian refugees, while there are undoubtedly selfish reasons for not extending that hand, I think that the main reason is that in the Muslim world there is an overriding belief that Israel was forcibly built on Palestinian land, and to cooperate with moving the Palestinians off en masse would amount to invalidating their claim to it.

Participant
Dick: Thanks for your understanding response. I have one question: your statement that "to cooperate with moving the Palestinians off en masse would amount to invalidating their claim to it."

It is my understanding that the US proposal was to have Israelis move off the land they claimed on the West Bank, and that other lands in the area would be assigned to the Palestinians. For both sides, and perhaps even more for the Palestinians than the Israelis, there isn't enough land and resources for what we would call "civilized" living.

But whether I am right or wrong on this, I haven't seen a map reflecting just what was suggested by Bush in his proposal and what has been half-accepted by Israel. Have you seen one?

Participant
No, Don, I haven't seen a map that I can really make sense of, but my understanding is that the Palestinian leaders, from Arafat on down, excluding Hamas and related groups, have accepted the idea of a Palestinian state within the pre 1967 war borders, plus part of Jerusalem. With their exploding birthrate, even more land than that would be insufficient eventually, I suppose. I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to the other Muslim nations absorbing the entire Palestinian refugee population.

The "right of return" remains a sticking point, but I suspect that can be negotiated. Barak and Arafat were pretty close at one point.

Participant
That is my understanding too. Where we differ is that I understood that Israel had provisionally accepted the return to the 1967 war borders subject to an effective ending of terrorism bombing -- which the Palestinians wouldn't discuss until the land boundaries were settled. As you say, Barak and Arfafat were close, but neither were happy enough with the terms of settlement to accept an agreement. I suspect that the insufficient land available for each group (now, not in the future) was a large part of the failure to move ahead into a firm agreement. This was why I mentioned the possible help other Muslim nations might have offered with land.

The dismal view of any available agreement for both sides may give my psychiatric addition to politics some validity. If there is anything to this theory, your expertise is way ahead of mine to suggest if and how it might be used.

Participant
An aside: Wouldn't it be fun to stage a debate between Dick Farson and Charles Krauthammer? (However he spells it.)

Years ago, Charles K was one of my favorite columnists. Now I can't stomach his extreme position in condemnation of the Palestinians. So I don't read him any more. (Him or Jack Krugman either.)

Participant
Ray, by eliminating Krauthammer and Krugman you've cut off both ends of the continuum. Well, not really. While we have extreme right wingers in the print media and on talk shows, we really don't have any extreme left wingers there, which makes moderate Krugman seem extreme. Unless of course you are really reading Jack Krugman, who played the slob in The Odd Couple. I read Paul Krugman religiously.

Participant

>> I read Paul Krugman religiously. <<

Yes, I know. I see his reflection here almost daily. That's why I put the <g> on the message. I don't know why I said "Jack" -- can't recall that I've ever seen or read him either, but I must have heard the name somewhere, or it wouldn't have popped up that way.

I guess we see "extreme" as equidistant and far removed from where we are, individually. If Krauthammer and Krugman are not really extreme, I'm still happy to ignore anyone beyond either of them.

More seriously, at least in Krugman's case, I'm not sure that I'm as far away from agreement as seems to be the case. I react sort of knee-jerk style to statements of opinion that are put forward as if they were "fact" or as not debatable, and Krugman throws in too many of those. As do you, sometimes. <g>

Participant
Ray, my opinions are not debatable. In this conference I speak ex cathedra. You forget, I'm a Ph.D.

By the way, Jack Krugman is probably some plumber in Cleveland. Jack Klugman was the slob. I just remembered. It's your Japanese pronunciation that got me off the track.

Lest you think I'm a Krugman disciple, I also read many writers with whom I disagree--in the NY Times, for example, Safire and Friedman (except today, I agree with Friedman).

Let me get back to the subject I raised, by asking you (or anyone else) to predict what would happen to me and my career if I were to take the position I took here in a television debate with Krauthammer? Could I get a good academic or corporate job? A research grant? Could I run for office with a chance for election?

Participant
Don, the way a psychologist who is a conflict resolution specialist might approach such a situation is to avoid simply airing their concerns about each other, but first try to escalate the discussion to a higher order goal that could work well for both of them, but only if they collaborate. In that case, the strategy holds, the disputed matters have to be solved or dismissed so that they can enjoy the benefits of the larger goal.

If the US were to play that role with the Palestinians and the Israelis, we would have to cast before them a picture of such riches and pleasures and security that they couldn't resist it. We have the riches to give them (think of what we could have done there with the 160 billion we are wasting this year in Iraq), now we have to figure out some of the other intrinsic rewards that would be meaningful. Seventy-two virgins? Talk about extrinsic rewards!

A psychiatrist would undoubtedly prescribe drugs. I wonder if that's been tried.

Am I explaining this strategy to the former president of the American Arbitration Association?

Participant
On this second anniversary of 9/11 we hear repeatedly that America changed after that date and will never be the same. Granted, I was 3,000 miles away, but I haven't changed, I don't think. Michael Crichton wrote me shortly thereafter saying that he didn't see any changes, and I pretty much agree. I don't even think people are frightened. Or feeling vulnerable. What has changed in America? Anything good?

Participant
Dick: Yes, I am "the former president" -- etc, but my recent thoughts are not from the teaching of my former colleagues but from my son who is one of the current developers of FACILITATION -- very different from arbitration or mediation. In fact, I think it is the practical application of your skills as a psychologist. It is the difference between bargaining to WIN vs discussing to inventing a NEW SOLUTION. Like you, it would see 160 billion better spent on trying to find a solution rather than clobbering others to accept what we have decided is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. And of course, it is not an either/or choice to use facilitation that I favor, but what I have called AVOIDING THE DICHOTOMOUS TRAP by thinking AND/ALSO, not EITHER/OR.

With traditional thinking, this is pie in the sky and left wing gobbledygook.

Participant
The Jerusalem Post today calls for the killing of Arafat, and all Hamas leaders. Any predictions about what course Middle Eastern events would take if that strategy were followed?

Previous Page        Next Page

top