To focus on the role of mosques in explaining the rise of political violence is to shield the primary cause, which is government failure, writes Ramzy Baroud* The deadly terrorist attacks in Egypt's Sharm El-Sheikh Red Sea resort in July 2005 and the October 2004 bombings at two other resorts in Sinai seem to have disrupted the consistency of the rationale that links the current terrorism upsurge in the Middle East to the United States war effort in Iraq. The Christian Science Monitor attempted to neatly package the ongoing debate in the West on the root causes of political and ideological terrorism within two primary schools of thought: one that links terror directly to the war on Iraq, and another that believes that terror groups are ideologically, rather than politically, motivated, thus reinforcing the "clash of civilisations" argument "Why jihadists target the West", 25 July 2005. The civilisation argument, as dissected by the Monitor, contends that the Sharm El-Sheikh terror -- directed at Westerners regardless of the role played by their governments to aid the Iraq war effort -- is a perfect case in point. "The Mecca for Westernised Egyptian and European tourists was targeted for the sin of being a beachhead of a globalised, tolerant culture in Arab Muslim territory," it maintained. In Egypt itself, the debate is characterised by an alternate yet equally flawed approach. The Associated Press, for example, reported that some Egyptians are now openly examining the link between culture and extremism, underlining the assertion that mosques and schools should be blamed for promoting Islamic extremism. The Egyptian debate, while unique in some ways to that country, is a recreation of the ongoing and honestly dubious intellectual scuffle over the role of the madrassas in Pakistan in moulding and forging terrorists from an early age. Not only do these arguments fail to candidly inspect a variety of other factors that might have contributed to the spread of terrorism, but they imprudently encourage measures that will most probably give terrorists more fuel to carry on with their mission of violence, cajoling additional recruits and resources. Cultural and religious intolerance is certainly not unique to the Middle East, nor is terrorism. If madrassas supposedly elucidate the motives behind the militancy of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, what will one make of terrorism in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Spain (prior to the rail bombings of March 2004) and Northern Ireland? It is not as if the list ends there. To the contrary, it barely begins. The truth is that Middle East terrorism became a globalised phenomenon after many regions around the world -- neither Arab nor Muslim -- experienced their share of deadly terror. It goes without saying that the rise of Al-Qaeda and its support networks worldwide have not in any way contributed to the decline of terrorism elsewhere. In fact, many innocent people continue to fall victim to terrorism in many other regions and in large numbers. The quandary is that the victims are often not Westerners, thus their plight is either entirely neglected or hastily stated by the world media and then quickly forgotten. Using the same logic, if the root cause of terrorism is indeed cultural and religious intolerance -- advocated in some Islamic schools and mosques -- then why aren't young American neo-conservatives and fundamentalist evangelicals blowing themselves up in crowded Libyan or Sudanese streets? Or, why are suicide bombings staged by Palestinians against Israelis and not the other way around? While unofficial terrorism -- as opposed to official, state- sponsored terror -- can inflict untold damage, it is often a frantic retort to political, cultural, religious, ideological and even physical oppression and violence. Unprovoked terror, at least in much of the Middle East is, if considered objectively, unheard of. Thus, violence in most instances trails behind greater acts of violence; the Iraqi "insurgent" (a terrorist according to prevailing Western media interpretation and a resistance fighter to many Arabs) was, in some ironic way, an American discovery. Without a violent invasion and occupation, Iraqis would've had no reason to fight back. By the same token, without an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the subsequent violence wrought upon Palestinians, the people of Palestine would have had no particular interest in blowing themselves up. If Islamic religious extremism truly produced terror in a complete vacuum, it would make little sense for an Iraqi woman to be the first suicide bomber following the invasion in March 2003, considering that most extremists forbid women from taking part in like forms of jihad. It would be equally baffling to recall that communist Palestinian revolutionaries were the ones who spearheaded "Palestinian terrorism" in the 1970s, decades before Hamas was conceptualised. Needless to say, a Jewish settler need not blow himself up, nor need a neo-con enthusiast, for they simply don't have to; their religious and cultural ideals of intolerance are carried out on a much grander scale through the official policies and practices of their respective governments. Hence, the war in Iraq, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, is arguably by far the greatest act of terrorism experienced in many years. As for the case of Egypt, veteran Egyptian journalist Ayman El-Amir, writing for Al-Ahram Weekly, articulated it best: terrorism (as a consequence of political ostracism, not religious fanaticism) is fermented not in mosques or the madrassas but in "solitary confinement cells, torture chambers and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate government". It's here that any genuine enquiry into the root causes of terrorism should begin, and most likely conclude. * The writer is an Arab American journalist who teaches mass communication at Curtin University of Technology. He is the author of the forthcoming Writings on the Second Palestinian Uprising.
