I thought there was room for debate with your friend Bob. Unfortunately, I have now the impression that there is none because he throws his thoughts in a very disorganized way and it seems that he is confusing the issues. He conceded that I was right on the High Dam. Now, whether you call it an ultimatum or something else, the fact is that Britain, France and Israel withdrew because Eisenhower said so.

His argumentation starts as follows: "Tell me. Did the Baath Party overthrow the monarchy and kill the members of the cabinet and expel the Americans of Baghdad College because of Israel? Did Iran and Iraq go to war for ten years because of Israel? Did Saddam invade Kuwait because of Israel?" Where are the answers? What does he know about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq? He keeps repeating that there is and "Islamic group that is anti-monarchical, and is anti-American". Is your fiend anti-republican by any chance? Then he says that "the U.S. oil supply's security depends on its dealings with these monarchies". What a big lie. The US imports less than 10 percent of its energy needs from the Middle East. The US oil supply is not threatened at all. There are other reasons for US presence in the area. Does Bob know them? Repeating that the reason is oil like the Administration and the media are doing means that he simply is misinformed.

I am in no way defending Islamic fundamentalism. I have suffered from it, like my fellow Christians and Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism, in the way it manifested itself recently, is a relatively new phenomenon. It is an effect not the cause. It seems, however, that Bob wants to deal with the effect, totally forgetting the cause. This is not the way to solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. These monarchies, "which to be sure" as he put it, "are in constant peril, especially the Saudi Arabian" are corrupt. Defending the corrupt monarchies of the Gulf just because they have oil will aggravate the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, not solve it. I am really baffled. What are his criteria? Morality and justice or oil?

I think my main complaint about Bob is that he didn't answer the question put to him. If you have seen in what he wrote some kind of an answer, I didn't. I have only seen ideas not connected to each other. For instance, he started by referring to the Jews and Hitler without explaining what he means and in what way is it related to the question posed. The Arabs are not responsible for what Hitler did to the Jews. He keeps confusing the issues. The Arab world and Islamic fundamentalism are not the same, Afghans are not Arabs and all Arabs are not Muslims. The same is true with Hitler, the Jews and the "Spartan government" of Israel. Referring to Hitler every time you mention Israel, let alone criticizing it, means one thing: absolving Israel of all its sins and they are many. I think he should liberate himself from this complex.

After lumping together the Baath Party, the monarchy, the Americans of Baghdad, Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, the US oil supply's security, he said "That is why the US needs Israel to keep the Arabs at bay." What does that mean? He needs to explain. As I see it, Israel didn't prevent all of the above. So what is his point? Israel, in fact, is a liability for the US and if he thinks that Israel is the one that will keep at bay Islamic fundamentalism, the latest incidents in Nairobi and Dar al-Salam prove him wrong. Remember also the incident in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Why didn't Israel prevent it? Whether it is the Arab world or Islamic fundamentalism, the "Spartan government" of Israel, and by extension the US administration, is accumulating one failure after another. This theory of his is just no good.

I don't know what are the sources that your friend Bob relies on to be informed. If it is only the American media (press and television) then he will stay misinformed the rest of his life. He needs to diversify the sources he uses, more importantly he needs to go to specialized publications. US media has an agenda and presents the whole issue in a simplistic way. The fact that he conceded that he was wrong on the High Dam issue proves my point.

Now, to come back to the question posed, let me clarify it. Bob wrote that the US supports Israel because Israel can hold the whole Arab world at bay. When I asked why do you need to keep the Arabs at bay I didn't mean to keep them at bay to prevent them from doing the "bad" things that they will be doing in the future. What I meant is: if you need to keep the Arabs at bay, you must have done something that makes you fear the consequences. What I was trying to say is this: the time has come to examine your conscience not just your pocketbook.

Medhat

August 23, 1998