By the end of the 90s, the hardliners who wanted a regime change in the East had a powerful ally in the State. The new president was conservative, an aggressive anti-French who wanted to turn his country into a world power with no rival at all. He thought he had to fight the Muslim regimes which were then the targets of the British press. The moment to overthrow Tipu, the sultan of Mysore, had arrived. It was year 1798. Henry Dundas had just been appointed minister and president of the East India Company. He and Governor-general Richard Welleskey decided to convince the public that their own policy, aimed at overthrowing Tipu, was completely justified. _In that press, Tipu was presented as an aggressive tyrant who oppressed his people and was hostile to Great Britain. That creating-a-bad-guy-who-must-be-fought experiment is still a useful model today. Nowadays we know Tipu was an educated, modern and tolerant leader who, considering the British hostility, wanted to join the princes and modernize his country with the assistance of French engineers. He had an important participation in the establishment of an Islamic-Indo syncretism which defended tolerance. _This story reminds the way in which the old-fashioned imperialist propaganda appeared again under George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Despite Edward Said’s 25 years experience, Middle-east-focused media work has not disappeared and nowadays counts on editorialists as in the past to guarantee its diffusion.

Sometime ago, a Kuwaiti trader told me that George W. Bush has “created a tsunami in this region.” This man was tired of waiting for an internal reform, he wanted the situation to be changed and if foreign assistance was necessary, so be it. A Jordanian friend told me what was happening today in Lebanon was possible because demonstrators knew the United States would not allow a repression comparable to the one that took place in Hama, Syria. When I visited the Arab world I went to Bush country: everywhere, Arabs are aware that such democratization wave they are experiencing is due to the United States and its actions in Iraq. _The force of the American power, historically allied to the dominant order, is today in favor of the liberalization of the region. Nowadays, a conservative president offers his country a Wilsonian redemption. This change of politics is reflected in its relations with Hosni Mubarak. In the past, he was the Americans’ man in the Nile and was seen as a mainstay against Islamism. That allowed him to reject Washington’s policy in Iraq and expressed his opposition regarding the Israeli-Palestinian problem. By doing this, he has fed the anti-modernism and the anti-American feeling in his country. Today, the United States demands a political opening of the country and this has led to the emergence of movements questioning his kingdom.
The United States has understood the search for stability through the support of dictators does not work and it was the cause of September 11. Concerning Muslims, Arab laypersons know that demanding sovereignty is no longer convenient. They know they are isolated from the world and must give up certain old aspirations. Iraq, of course, has been the beginning of this new approach. Despite the bombs, the democratic movement develops there like a free press does. What we are witnessing in the Arab world is similar to the spring of the European peoples in 1848. The democratic revolution spreads itself in every country. George W. Bush has been the initiator of this movement.

We would like to find a solution to our dispute with Ahmed Chalabi. This is what Jalal Talabani has asked us and we are trying to find a solution. The problem is it is not a political dispute but an economic one; he owes money to the Jordanian people, not to his government. Therefore, a compensation for Jordanians must be agreed.
I think that, in the end, Iraq will succeed and will become an independent and competent country. The Iraqis have become much more mature during these last months. The decisive element was the January 30 elections, an event that exceeded my expectations. The real barometer of the situation in Iraq will be the elections in December, after the drafting of the Constitution. Partly, the insurrection is due to foreign elements although there are also members of the Baas Party and of Saddam Hussein security services. These groups must be isolated in the Sunnite society by convincing it of participating in the future of the country. I think we will succeed and there will be no civil war.
I think Bush government’s policy in favor of democracy is useful for it favors the debate. In Jordan, we are immersed in a process of reform and we speed them up. Regarding Lebanon, I think that, above all, the country must belong to the Lebanese people and I welcome the Syrian withdrawal. Damascus understood the situation had changed.
I feel optimistic regarding the Israeli-Palestinian problem but what will happen after the withdrawal from Gaza and the “road map” must be specified. I talked about this with George W. Bush and we agreed the foundation of a Palestinian state is feasible. Mahmoud Abbas is doing his best on terrorism but he needs help. The Israeli must do something. Providing economic assistance to the Palestinians is the best way to reduce the influence of Hamas. If the Israeli-Palestinian problem is solved, recruiting people from the Arab world would be more difficult for terrorists.

During the last municipal elections in Saudi Arabia - the first democratic experience of the nation - some were concerned about the figures reached by the Islamists vs. their secular opponents. In fact, we witnessed a similar tendency in Turkey, Morocco, Iraq and an identical episode is to be expected in Lebanon, Palestine or Egypt. This trend cannot be ignored but let’s leave panic aside. Actually, the evolution of this movement has been watched for 30 years now and I see a significant progress that prompts those parties to become democratic Muslim movements, following a process comparable to that which propitiated the creation of the Democrat-Christian parties in Europe.
In order to understand that evolution, it should be recalled that under authoritarian regimes, mosques are the only places where listening to an anti-establishment political speech is feasible. This has enabled the Islamists to come inside the political life and develop theocratic movements that already had some influence on the society due to their charitable activities. Considered to be more effective and honest than the present government, the leaders of such movements have gradually caught on even among the secular Arabs. Currently, two thirds of the 1400 million Muslims in the world live under the guidance of democratically elected governments wherein the Islamists play an important role.
The Islamists must have the same rights than the rest to participate in the elections. If they are forbidden to do so, they might well be converted into armed groups and be regarded as martyrs. In contrast, their integration into political systems makes them more pragmatic. We cannot expect them to change overnight, but their integration into a strictly legal and political setting may allow such change.
To achieve this, the United States should adopt a more pacific approach, inspired in the “Great Middle East” project or in the Barcelona initiative of the EU. The model is the process of Helsinki 1975, which so positively impacted on the USSR.

If everything turns out all right, the Israelis will very soon have left Gaza, but nobody knows what will happen to the abandoned settlements. To start with, those buildings should be destroyed but that doesn’t seem to be the top priority choice any longer and reflection is needed about that which is considered more feasible to broaden the framework of opportunities.
Those who advocate destruction think that such luxurious houses do not go with the necessities of the Palestinians, whose population is large and poor. Consequently, it would be necessary to replace those houses with big apartment blocks. If rich Palestinians happened to occupy those houses, social tensions would increase or Hamas would take the houses to turn them into their symbol of victory. However, the destruction would cost $ 18 million according to a study by the Aspen Institute and would present a bad image of Israel. In contrast, giving such settlements to the Palestinian Authority so that it turned the place into a symbol of peace would mean lots of benefits.
A third party could also get involved in purchasing such territories so that the Palestinians could work there in greenhouses. Moreover, having an mediator would make the process easier. An organization such as Seed of Peace could take care of the issue. However, other NGO’s or UN agencies could also cooperate in this regard.

The Muslim world expects that the new Pope will continue his predecessor’s tolerance and the line he had opened up to the Islam. One can speak of renovation of religious practices as being very important in the world in which we live. Studies have shown that what is being taught in Germany concerning Islam is distorted. During suicide attacks, the media immediately speaks of Muslim terrorists, though religion is not mentioned when the terrorist is not Muslim. The truth is that terrorists are our common enemies - they struck us before you, remember the death of Anouar El Sadate. We are in the same boat. The West should cease its generalizations. You cannot spurn 1.3 billion people for the crimes of a few. There exist numerous Islamic laws that prohibit suicidal attacks.
There is no concrete declaration on the part of Mohammed Al Tantawi (the sheik of the Al-Azhar University) regarding Palestine, since the religious Muslims consider the conflict to be political and not religious. Democracy has existed in Egypt for 150 years and we are leading ourselves toward the democratization of the world, but we have internal problems that force us to impose other priorities. For example, we have a 36% rate of illiteracy, high unemployment and are experiencing rapid demographic growth. Those are obstacles in the path to democracy.
I agree with Al Tantawi when he says that the French government is entitled to prohibit the use of the veil. In the first place, he said that to use the veil is a religious duty and that no politician should be entitled to prevent it. Then he recognized that each country is sovereign and decides for itself. Muslims are in an pressing situation due to that law which authorizes women to remove their veil.

The withdrawal is an important step in the right direction, but it is timorous. It must be supported, but it can be said that and clearly that it won’t solve anything: it is only the first page of a book that has numbers of chapters, some of which will be mortal. After that withdrawal, it will be seen that the scenarios mentioned by Moshe Yaalon (former head of the general staff who resigned) and Avi Dichter (former head of Shin Beth) will be carried out. I hope that Abu Mazen will know how to destroy the terrorist infrastructure. However, it is possible that Hamas will become more powerful over the next few months. Terrorism can reemerge in Judea, Samaria, or in the Gaza. Sharon is recognized to have found a solution that is in contradiction with what has been said for dozens of years. The Palestinians are going to consider that withdrawal as a victory. They are going to say that Sharon has surrendered and that Abu Mazen will try to obtain more concessions and isolate Sharon. We must complete the Wall in a few months, for national security. Then we must evacuate the settlements to the east of there. At the same time, it will be necessary to carry out a merciless war without against terrorism on both sides, without closing the door to the renewal of the political process.
Three years ago was possible to build the Wall with support and financing of the US. We should be able to maintain Ariel and Maaleh Adumim as well as other important positions within the Wall. We should be able to save 35 billion shekels (6.3 billion Eurus) and saved numbers of lives. The public doesn’t know that 60% of the barrier is still unfinished, and that terrorists can still infiltrate. We should complete that construction, even at the price of conflict with the Europeans and even with the United States. Israel is the strongest country within a 1,500 km radius and I am convinced that it can become one of the most powerful nations on the planet. If we obtain defined frontiers, we will free up enormous energy that up to now has remained blocked. The fundamental problem is the following: there is no opportunity to establish borders to the east of the Wall. Sharon does not have the courage to go and say that to the resident of those settlements, and, therefore, there also runs the risk of losing the largest territories (in Judea Samaria). It is a good tactic, but it doesn’t have a have a strategy.
After the withdrawal, Sharon will tell the right and say that it is necessary to preserve Judea Samaria from the left that wants to abandon everything. He can modify Israeli opinion, but not the Palestinians’. There will be a third Intifada. Whole companies will have to increasingly protect the small settlements; mothers will ask why their children must die. One day Sharon will understand what he should have understood. Hundreds of people will die and thousands will be worn down so that we are permanently forced to return to a situation that is worse than the one that was still possible.