About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Monday, January 18, 2010
MEMRI: Responses in Arab Press to More Stringent Security Checks at U.S. Airports - For and Against

MEMRI Special Dispatch | No. 2754 | January 15, 2010

U.S. and the Arab & Muslim World

Responses in Arab Press to More Stringent Security Checks at U.S. Airports –
For and Against

A few days after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253
from Amsterdam to Detroit by Umar Farouq 'Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian student
and Al-Qaeda member, the U.S. administration announced that it would be
carrying out more stringent security checks on passengers arriving in the
U.S. from 14 countries, including Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

Osama Naqli, director of the media department at the Saudi Foreign Ministry,
said in response that his country would not tolerate any violation of the
dignity of its citizens, their freedom of movement, or their privacy for any
reason whatsoever, and that the Saudi embassy in Washington has demanded
explanations from the U.S. in this matter.[1]

In the Arab press, there were mixed reactions to the U.S. decision. The
Saudi daily Al-Riyadh published an editorial justifying the U.S.'s security
move. In contrast, Tallal Salman, columnist for the Lebanese daily
Al-Mustaqbal, attacked the decision, and Al-Riyadh columnist Fares bin
Hazzam called for a response in kind.
The following are excerpts from the three articles:

Al-Riyadh Editor: Help the U.S. in Its Fight against Terror
Turki Al-Sudairi, editor of the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, wrote an
editorial titled "Who Should Be Chastised – The Muslim or the American?"
expressing his support for the U.S.'s increased airport security measures:
"The U.S. [has decided] to carry out strict [security] checks [on travelers]
passing through its airports or stopping in one of its cities. Has it
decided to do so in order to hobble Muslims in general, or Arab Muslims in
particular, and to discriminate between people?
"What happened a few days prior to this move? And what happened nine years
before it? What acts of terror took place during this time? If an American
had volunteered to blow up an airplane from a Muslim or Arab country, and to
murder innocent people who have nothing to do with diplomacy – would this be
considered heroism? And what happened to the Lockerbie plane?
"I do not rebuke those who approved [the U.S.'s move]... because for Saudi
citizens on all levels – students, businessmen, and tourists – America is
the preferred [destination]. Before we demand that America moderate [this
decision], we must demand [Arab and Muslim] support for the efforts of the
[Arab] governments, and particularly those of the Saudi government, to
minimize extremism – the real mother of terrorism.
"The Saudi security apparatuses have managed to expel terror [from their
country], thus earning everyone's respect – and today, the terrorism has
relocated to Yemen and to the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Nevertheless, there is [still] much to be done [in this area, even] in this
country [Saudi Arabia], and it is society that is responsible for correcting
[extremist] ideologies.
"In America, is there any preacher calling weekly in church to wage jihad
against Islam and the Islamic countries? How are [the Americans supposed to]
perceive what is happening in our Muslim and Arab world?
"The Arab and Muslim problem is not that there is such a thing as a
terrorist – that peculiar human creature that is willing to pay with its own
life in order to kill others, something that nobody has ever done before,
except the Hashashin state, which, centuries ago, tried to promote Islam
using the same kind of murderous [strategies].[2] The number of terrorists
or Al-Qaeda members cannot be reduced by expulsion and punishment alone, as
long as they continue [to be supported by] extremist religious groups that
are hostile to anything new and modern. America is in their sights because
it is the pioneer of everything new and modern."[3]

Lebanese Columnist: Stricter Security Checks – Greater Arab Hostility

Tallal Salman, columnist for the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, rejected the
increased U.S. security measures: "Recently, we read that U.S. President
Barack Obama spoke openly, revealing his dissatisfaction with his security
apparatuses in light of their shameful helplessness and their inability to
protect the U.S. from the terrorist dangers before they materialized.
"Following this reprimand, the [American] security apparatuses arbitrarily
instituted oppressive and loathsome measures [for checking] travelers
arriving in U.S. airports from 14 countries, among them Lebanon.
"[The decision to do this] followed the thwarting of an attempted bombing of
a plane that was meant to land at a U.S. airport. The 'hero' [of this
operation] was a young Nigerian man who was a member of Al-Qaeda.
"We do not dispute the right of any country to protect its citizens. But we
wonder whether it is clear to Washington that such actions only increase the
third world peoples' hostility towards them. [Everything the U.S. has
done] – from the first Iraq war to what is happening [today] in Iraq, Yemen,
Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan – [has caused] the hatred of the peoples
towards the U.S. to increase in intensity several times over...
"Why has the U.S. reached the point of punishing an entire people only
because one man decided to blow up a plane? Hundreds of thousands of young
people dream of going to the U.S. and living there – but each of them is
[now] considered a terrorist there. And then you [Americans] wonder, 'Why do
they [the Arabs] hate us?'
"I do not hate you. It would be more accurate to say that you want us to
hate you just as you hate us."[4]

Saudi Columnist: Measure for Measure – Institute Similar Security Checks for
U.S. Travelers

Fares bin Hazzam, columnist for Al-Riyadh, called on his country, Saudi
Arabia, to respond in kind by instituting tougher security checks for
American citizens. He said that U.S. President Barack Obama's policy on
terror was identical to that of his predecessor Bush: "Since the citizens of
Saudi Arabia were placed on the same list as the citizens of other
[countries] whose lands know security tremors, there is nothing to prevent
[us from] placing U.S. citizens on a similar list – a special list for
travelers from countries notorious for [having problems with] drugs, or for
other dangers.
"Acting according to the principle of measure for measure is preferable to
clarifications or protests. Many Arab countries use this method for matters
such as visas. Some do not abolish the visa requirement until an agreement
is reached with the other country. The reason for this is clear – a measure
for a measure.
"This is not incitement against the citizens of the U.S.; it is the only
political language understood in our world. [The principle of] measure for
measure motivates anyone who carries out undesirable moves to reconsider his
policy and his decisions.
"All of a sudden, the U.S. decided to place Saudi Arabia on this unbalanced
list. Strategic relations between the two countries cannot tolerate such
actions. More important, the U.S. security apparatuses know all too well
what Saudi Arabia is doing in order to fight terror and that it is a leader
in this field – while the U.S., [until a few years ago], was at the height
of its complacency towards terror, and completely ignored the Saudi warning
calls, including those [prior to] 9/11.
"What is certain now is that U.S. President Barack Obama is looking like his
predecessor, George Bush. He opposed many of the decisions and positions on
the issue of terrorism, and presented himself to the world as correcting the
failures of the previous policy. But today, his response is no different
[from that of Bush]...
"The message is the same message, the phrases are the same, and there is no
difference [between the two presidents] except in name and in skin
color."[5]

[1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 6, 2010.
[2] The Hashashin, also known as Nizaris, were a medieval Muslim sect that
split off from Isma'ili Shi'a. In the 11th – 13th centuries they settled in
mountain strongholds in Syria and Persia, from which they set out on
missions of murder and destruction.
[3] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), January 12, 2010.
[4] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), January 9, 2010.
[5] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), January 10, 2010.

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)