Interview with Dr. Bernard Lewis pt 1
INTERVIEWER: May I have your full name and the spelling? DR. LEWIS: Bernard Lewis. B-e-r-n-a-r-d. INTERVIEWER: What title do you like to be referred as? 00:01:28>>> DR. LEWIS: I'm not interested in titles. If you want my formal description, I am Professor Emeritus of Near East Studies, at Princeton University. INTERVIEWER: How do you want to be characterized? DR. LEWIS: Actually, the way they put it is, Professor of Near East Studies Emeritus. So bear in mind that I'm a historian, which means that I deal with the past. And I am a retired historian, which means that even my past is passe, so don't ask me to predict the future. INTERVIEWER: What would you say is the number one myth or misconception that westerners have? 00:02:30>>> DR. LEWIS: That's a good question. There are so many, not as many as they have about us. That's even worse, but that's not your question. I would say, the number one myth is the same on both sides, and that is, we all tend to judge others by our selves. We're sure their motivations are the same as ours would be. Their responses are the same as ours would be. And that's a big mistake on both sides. INTERVIEWER: Can you give an especially flagrant example of that? DR. LEWIS: Yes, a flagrant example, or a misconception, I should say, is the one which is - which arises between democratic societies and non-democratic societies. They have great difficulty in understanding each other, people who live in a democracy with free press and freedom of expression simply cannot understand the realities of life in a society where the media are owned or controlled by authority, and where the free expression of opinion can be extremely dangerous. And it's the same the other way around. People who live in a dictatorship, including the dictator himself, often go badly wrong in judging a free society. Hitler, for example did that in 1939, when he totally misunderstood - misread what was happening in the west. He was half right, half wrong. He was right about France, he was wrong about England. INTERVIEWER: How does this impact upon the prominent in Israel, seem to have? The Israel regime? How does the government you just mentioned, to recap, how does that impact upon (Inaudible) on the central issue? 00:04:21>>> DR. LEWIS: Israel is, what you might call, a licensed grievance. And in this society it is very important that people should have a way of venting their spleen, expressing their grievances. Obviously it would be very dangerous if they started complaining about their own governments. They may do so in strict privacy, and under the seal of secrecy, but they cannot do so openly. They have a whole series of grievances, most of them, not all of them, legitimate grievances against their own governments. But these, of course, cannot be really expressed. And it is therefore useful to be able to deflect them elsewhere. 00:05:03>>> And, the Israel question has become the favorite licensed grievance. It's very suitable for a number of reasons. One of them is that Israel is an open society. So it is possible to come and go freely, to report freely, which is not possible in many other areas where the Israeli world comes into conflict with its neighbors. And the other reason is that Israel happens to be predominantly inhabited by Jews. And (Inaudible) Jews are Jews. And anything in which Jews are involved will arouse some feelings, either for or against, sometimes the one, sometimes the other, sometimes both at the same time. And that, again, gets a special interest and, shall we say, flavor, in making this issue the licensed grievance. By this I didn't mean to say the ___ aren't important and the big issues aren't real. But it is certainly not the major issue. INTERVIEWER: What would you say was the major issue motivating the September 11th issue? 00:06:15>>> DR. LEWIS: Well if you look at Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of war on the United States, which was published in February 1998, he gives three reasons. The first, of which, the one he gave the greatest emphasis, is the American presence in Saudi Arabia. The second one is the attack on Iraq from Saudi Arabia. And the third one, comparatively minor place, is the Palestinian question in which he speaks dismissively, and what he calls in Arabic, the ____, the sort of mini state or petty state of the Jews. And one can understand his order of priorities, remember, for Muslims the Holy Land is Arabia. That is where the prophet was born and lived and died, and revealed the Koran, and set up the first Islamic State and community. So for Muslims, the presence of non Muslim troops, on the sacred soil of the Holy Land, is an appalling desecration. And this is not the first time. Take, for example, the period of The Crusades. 00:07:26>>> When the Crusaders arrived in the Middle East and captured Jerusalem and set up their states in the Levant. Nobody gave a damn. And the extraordinary thing was the lack of reaction in the Muslim world at the time. The Muslims, in Jerusalem, sent agonized appeals for help to Damascus, and Baghdad, and Cairo. Nobody took the slightest notice. And, on the contrary, Crusaders set up their principalities. And these were able to fit very quickly into the game of politics, of alliances and counter-alliances, with Crusader states and Muslim states, so to speak, on both sides. When the counter Crusades really began, was when a Crusader chieftain started raiding Arabia, when he sent raiding parties to raid pilgrim caravans, and sent ships into the Red Sea to raid the ports. That was what really aroused Muslim anger, and that's what caused Saladin to start the great counter Crusade, which eventually led to dragging Crusaders out. INTERVIEWER: (Inaudible) 00:08:34>>> DR. LEWIS: He had an understanding, I wouldn't call it an alliance. But he certainly had an understanding with the Latin King of Jerusalem; a number of arrangements between the two of them, both ways. And this attack, (Inaudible), was in violation of the agreement between Saladin and the King of Jerusalem. Yes, that is correct. And that illustrates the importance - now, during the Great Age of British Imperial Expansion, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the British Empire nibbled at the edges of Arabia. But they were wise enough not to land and establish forces on sacred soil. They were in Aden and had arrangements of various kinds with the gulf principalities. But they were wise enough not to land forces on Arabian soil. That was the principal cause of Osama Bin Laden's anger. And this appears very clearly in his own statements at the time. 00:09:39>>> The second one, was Iraq, and that again is understandable. Iraq is not a Holy Land in any sense. But Iraq was the seat of the Abasid, the greatest and most glorious period of Islamic history - the center of Islamic, and therefore in a sense, of world civilization, the heart of for half a millennium. Attacking Iraq was bad enough, but doing so from Arabia made it worse. And the Palestine issue comes in third place, in a rather perfunctory way. Later he realized there was something to be gained from changing the order, and he did so. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the Crusaders, and the Crusader invasions, are there any ways you can talk about the way the Crusader theme echoes either by direct reference ___, today's feelings in the Muslim world and the Arabian world? 00:10:47>>> DR. LEWIS: Yeah, the interesting thing about the Crusader theme is that it is a comparatively modern development in the Islamic world. At the time of The Crusades, they were hardly noticed. And Muslim historiography is extraordinarily rich and extraordinarily detailed. They chronicled in meticulous detail, even minor skirmishes. They report the arrival of the Crusaders. They report every battle which occurred. But without noticing that there was such a thing as a Crusade going on. It's curious, for example, that the words Crusade and Crusader do not occur in the Arabic historiography of that period. They simply refer to them as the Franks, meaning these barbarians from Europe, or as the Christians, or most commonly, simply, as the Unbelievers. And they report the various battles and then the various political deals and so on, as, shall we say, a normal part of the historical process. 00:11:46>>> The discovery of the Crusades comes in the 19th Century, when they started translating European historical literature to Arabic, and realized the importance of this in a European perspective. And then, of course, making the necessary adjustments, adopted it in their own historical perspective. Nowadays it's become very important indeed. I think one needs to explain it as - INTERVIEWER: Let's take it from the top. 00:12:17>>> DR. LEWIS: One needs to explain this as part of a larger conflict. And there is a lot of talk, nowadays, about the clash of civilizations. I think that it's worth redefining this term for this purpose. There are many civilizations in History. But there are only two which come into this kind of clash. Most of the civilizations, India, China, the ancient civilizations of the Middle East, are regional or local, with one area, one or two ethnic groups. There are only two civilizations which claim a universal, global missions, these are Christianity and Islam. What they have in common is the belief, on both sides, that they - or should I say we - whichever one it is - we are the fortunate possessors of God's final message to humanity, which it is our duty to share with the rest of the world and not keep selfishly for ourselves. 00:13:23>>> So, you have two religions, with this sense of universal mission - theologically related, historically consecutive, geographically adjoining, and obviously a clash between them is inevitable. But the clash arises, not from their differences, but from their resemblances. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem, will certainly have visited the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is, in itself, an interesting statement. It is on the site of the temple, the ancient Jewish Temple. It's near to, and in the style of such early Christian monuments as The Ascension and The Holy Sepulcher. And if you look at the inscription inside, of which there are a number, I studied - I taught Middle Eastern Studies at a time when it was not yet considered an offense to learn Arabic, and it has become so since, as you know. And if you read the inscriptions, you will find statements like this: He is God, one, he has no peer, he has no companion, he does not beget, he is not begotten. These are clearly polemical statements against certain basic Christian doctrines. And you'll find the same text inscribed on the gold coins which were struck by the Caliphate at the time, the Caliph built that monument. And this is clearly a challenge. What he is saying, in effect, is a saying to the Christian world and to the Christian emperor, Constantinople, Your time has passed, your revelation is superseded, we have God's final word- we have God's final word, move over it's our turn, we take over. And that was the beginning of a long series of wars between Christendom and Islam. First, between the Caliph states and Byzantium. Then, between the Ottomans and - well the Ottomans came later - Then the Crusaders and the counter-Crusades, and so on, until modern times. And Osama Bin Laden, from his writings, is clearly (or shall I say was, I don't know), a very historical minded person. With frequent references and allusions to past history. And it is quite clear that this is the framework in which he sees it. He will refer rapidly, rapid, incomplete, passing, allusions, to events of the 7th Century, 11th Century and so on. In the sure knowledge that his target audience will pick up and understand these allusions. INTERVIEWER: The United States is neither, a Christian - especially a Christian Empire, nor is it the only country to assert itself from the outside. Yet, isn't there something about The United States, particularly, as ____, and invading into the terrain of Arabia - wasn't it something specifically about the identity and shape of the United States? 00:16:47>>> DR. LEWIS: It is the fact that the United States [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] The role of America is due not so much to anything that America does in this or that particular context, but to the fact that America is now the unchallenged, unchallengeable leader of what we like to call the free world, what some people call the West, and what, in a Muslim perspective, will be seen as the world of the unbelievers, or more specifically, the world of the Christians. And the hostility, the warfare, were directed against the Christians by Constantine. Constantinople, against the Holy Emperor in Vienna, against the British and French Empires, all of which have passed. Now the United States is seen as the latest in the series of Infidel supreme rulers, delaying, obstructing the inevitable advance of Islam. INTERVIEWER: Nevertheless, the September 11th attacks while (Inaudible) didn't seem (Inaudible) weren't designed to strike American military, although there was an attack on the Pentagon, but it seemed particularly focused on killing the most amount of civilians in America (Inaudible). Can it be purely ___ simply by the strategic (Inaudible)? 00:18:15>>> DR. LEWIS: One has to see this in the context of their assessments of the United States. And we are quite well informed about this. And -what happened in the last ten, twelve, fifteen years, the major change in the world was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, we like to persuade ourselves that this was our achievement. This is indignantly denied by the Osama Bin Laden's and their like. And one cannot deny that there is some plausibility in what they say. The defeat of the Soviet Union was their achievement, not ours; in the mountains of Afghanistan, they fought, resisted, defeated and ejected the Soviets, leading to the collapse of The Soviet Union. 00:19:06>>> Now, for the last two hundred years or so, Muslim governments and others have been aware of their weakness, compared with the west, and they usually try to survive by playing the western powers off against one another. Now, for the first time, there was anyone - one - in the last stage of this pattern of rivalry, it was The United States against The Soviet Union. Of the two remaining super powers, one was now eliminated, only one remained. So this is a clear restatement of the global situation. 00:19:40>>> Now, if they felt they had succeeded in winning a victory against the larger, stronger, more determined, more ruthless, more dangerous of the two, and the dealing with the United States would be comparatively easy. And one finds this said - stated again and again, in interviews and others, the general line is, The Americans have gone soft. They are pampered, they can't take it. Hit them and they will run. And the saying, litany, is repeated again and again, by Osama Bin Laden and others; Vietnam, the marines in Beirut, Somalia, and a whole series of incidents during recent years which brought, in effect, no response. So they decided that they were dealing with a demoralized, degenerate - a demoralized and degenerate society which would collapse if attacked in this way. INTERVIEWER: If I was going to capture the last thing you said, so it is basically a perception of America - Bin Laden's perception of America, if you could sum it up. DR. LEWIS: As a corrupt, degenerate - they see America as a corrupt, degenerate society, rotten from within, soft, pampered, incapable of serious trouble. You see what happened in Afghanistan obviously gave them - pause for thought. But the debate that's been going on, since then, may confirm them in their earlier perception. INTERVIEWER: You've written, (Inaudible), that they were wrong about that they - hopefully, you (Inaudible) they were wrong about their perception of The United States. And that Bush's counteraction may have proven them wrong. DR. LEWIS: Mm-hm. INTERVIEWER: You expect this, in hindsight. 00:21:34>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes, what happened in Afghanistan, certainly came as a shock. They expected more of the same. In other words, fierce words, maybe one or two missiles to remote, and uninhabited places. But no more than that. They thought they would continue until the final overthrow of the great Satan. What happened in Afghanistan, certainly came as a shock. And brought some reassessment of realities. But I have the feeling that something that has happened, since then, in The United States, is totally beyond their comprehension. And that is the open debate of a free society. We see the open debate of a free society. They see hesitation, division, weakness, fear. What I am afraid of is that they will act on those mistaken assumptions. INTERVIEWER: Do you see any parallel between that assessment of the American society, and the assessment of some extreme Islamists here, about Israeli society? 00:22:33>>> DR. LEWIS: Well yesterday, much so - you find the same points being made against Israel. Some even say, explicitly, the Israeli's like their American patrons, I've seen that, have become soft and pampered, hit them and they'll run. I have seen it in print and I've heard it in many conversations. That was strengthened, in their opinion, confirmed, by the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, I think it was right for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon. I think they should have withdrawn a long time ago. In 82', they went in to do something, they did it. Having done it, there was no reason to stay on. But they did. But the manner of the withdrawal, that confirmed all of these assessments. I mean, a hasty, undignified departure; abandoning equipment, and abandoning friends, does not - does not project an image of strength and determination. INTERVIEWER: You mentioned a lot of political, historical, psychological, collective psychological ___, what about the content of certain religious (Inaudible)? Do you think that is actually derivable, or even distortable from subversion of Islamic groups? 00:23:55>>> DR. LEWIS: Well, it's very difficult to generalize about Islam. When you talk about Islam, remember we use the word Islam in two senses; we use it as the equivalent of Christianity, that's to say a religion in the strict sense, a system of belief and worship. We also use it as the equivalent of Christendom. Which means a whole civilization under the aegis of that religion. ,Now, Hitler and the Nazis are not part of Christianity, but they did arise within Christendom. They are part of the history of Christendom. And if you want to try and understand the Nazi phenomenon, you have to look at it in its historical context. Now, unfortunately, as I say, we use the same word Islam, in these two different senses. I would say that Bin Laden is on another movement of the same kind. Not part of true Islam, central Islam, mainstream Islam, or whatever you choose to call it. But this certainly arises within the context of Islamic history and culture. And this is due, in particular, to the unfortunate combination of three different things. One of them is Wajabi [PH] doctrine. Wajabism is a very peculiar, I won't say sect, that's really a Christian term that doesn't apply. Let's say a school of thought, within Islam, which arose in Desert Arabia - in the northeast of Arabia - in the 18th Century. And until the mid 20th Century, remained, basically, a local phenomenon. Wajabi doctrine is very extreme, very radical, very violent, and totally intolerant. Not only intolerant of non-Muslims, but intolerant of any version of Islam, other than their own. 00:25:46>>> The second factor is the rise of the house of Saud. The Saudi house ___, where there were tribal sheiks in ___. They adopted a Wajabi doctrine. And they tried, on several occasions, to spread elsewhere in Arabia. And in the mid 20's, of the 20th Century, they were finally successful. They succeeded in overthrowing the Kingdom of the Hijas which is where Mecca and Medina, the holy cities of Islam, are situated. They drove out previous orders. They took over Mecca and Medina, and they incorporated these Holy Cities. This gave them - in their kingdom - they incorporated these holy cities in their kingdom - this gave them enormous influence of prestige in the Islamic world. The Saudi ruler was now, to use their phrase, the custodian of the holy places. Enormous prestige deriving from that, had gained him control of the pilgrimage. Which, every year brings hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, from all over the Moslem world. That's two. 00:27:00>>> Now, the third thing that happened is the discovery of oil, which suddenly gave them wealth beyond their dreams of avarice. So, you have this combination of the Saudi monarchy, Wajabi doctrines, and oil money enabling them to spread that peculiar brand of Islam all over the Islamic world. And - let me try to explain it by an imaginary parallel. Imagine that the Ku Klux Klan obtains control of The State of Texas. Has total control of its oil wells, and its oil revenues. And they then use this money to establish a well endowed network of schools and colleges, all over Christendom, peddling their peculiar brand of Christianity. That is not nearly as bad as the reality of what happened, because most Christian countries have reasonably good school systems. Many Moslem countries don't. And the Wajabi, sponsored and financed, schools are the only ones that are available for young Muslims with no money. So they are having an enormous impact. They're also having it in the former Soviet territories; the Republics, which are a majority - a Muslim majority populations, where there was previously no religious education, and where the Wajabi's, amply financed, are now providing it. It's happening also among the Muslim communities, in non-Muslim countries - in Europe and America, where, for obvious reasons, the government does not interfere in religious education of minority communities. So they are free to do it any way that they like. ,It's interesting, for example, but so far twelve Turks have been arrested as members of Al Qaeda. All twelve of them were born and brought up, and educated, in Germany. Not one of them in Turkey. Because religious education, Muslim religious education in Turkey, is conducted under supervision. Muslim religious education in Germany is totally unsupervised, as it is in the United States and elsewhere. So that people who have a very natural desire to provide their children with some knowledge, and their inherited culture and tradition, want to send their children to evening classes, or weekend classes, or holiday camps, or whatever. These are now almost entirely controlled by Wajabi's. And they-they spread this very strange version of Islam. 00:29:42>>> If it hadn't been for the combination of Saudi power and oil money, Wajabism would have remained a lunatic fringe in a marginal country. It is this unholy combination, which has made it a world force which we have to confront. INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the world forces, this world force as opposed to ___. Do you have anything specific to say about Judaism or Jews? DR. LEWIS: Oh yes. I mean from the Muslim point of view, and this is not just Wajabi. From the Muslim point of view Judaism and Christianity are not false religions, like Buddhism, say, or Confucianism. They are superseded religions. From the Muslim perception, there was, shall we say, a series of revelations. The Jews have theirs, the Christians came later with theirs, but both the Jews and the Christians falsify their religions; they proved unworthy custodians of the revelations that had been given to them. That's why a new one was needed. So, when Islam came, Judaism and Christianity were superseded, replaced by the latest version of God's revelation. And Muslim law lays down, quite explicitly, that Jews and Christians must be tolerated. They must be allowed to practice their religions, within certain limits, and subject to certain conditions. But not in the Holy Land of Arabia. There, non-Muslims are not permitted to set foot. INTERVIEWER: This is a different narrative from the standard that we hear about, the grievances of the Muslim Arab world, in particular. (Inaudible) in flux of foreigners, Jews, came in the 1930's, and 40's, ___ populated Arab (Inaudible). Is replacing its population and become a world power in its midst, (Inaudible). 00:31:44>>> DR. LEWIS: I didn't mean to suggest that the grievances about Palestine are imaginary. There are genuine grievances arising from a genuine problem. But it is only one of a series of such grievances. If you look around all the edges of the Muslim world, where Muslims and non Muslims meet; in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Chechnya in Kashmir, in ___, in Mindanao, and so on, and so on, you have these conflicts between Muslims and non Muslims, of which the Palestine conflict is one. In some respects, worse than others, in some respects not as bad as others. But certainly the most publicized, for the reasons I mentioned before, you're dealing with a - it has special publicity for one reason, because Israel is an open society, where one can talk, and broadcast, and print, and come, and go freely. Which is hardly the case in these other places that I mentioned. And second, because Jews are involved. And that's always a good point of publicity. INTERVIEWER: What about the third real grievance about this notion that Jews can't displace (Inaudible)? That Jews are the latest version of colonialism (Inaudible)? 00:33:07>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes, there are some who put it that way, and there are different ways of interpreting these matters. As regards the specific point of displacement, and -the-events of 1948 have to be seen, I think, in its terrible context. And, yes, according to UN statistics, about three quarters of a million Arabs fled or were driven from Palestine in the course of the hostilities. If I may remind you of the circumstances. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to establish two states; a Jewish State and an Arab State, in the former British mandated territory in Palestine, with an international enclave in Jerusalem. 00:34:23>>> The General Assembly passed this resolution, but as has often been the way of the United Nations, it made no arrangements whatever for its enforcement, or even an application. The Arab League did make arrangements for its prevention. They declared, right away, that they would not recognize it, and sent their armies to invade Palestine and prevent the application of the resolution. They were half successful, half unsuccessful. They failed to prevent the establishment of Israel. They were able to prevent the establishment of the Palestinian state, which was also part of the resolution. And the territories which were not part occupied or administered to Israel, at that time, they were occupied and administered by neighboring Arab States - that's to say, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. INTERVIEWER: Can you repeat the last sentence? (Inaudible). DR. LEWIS: Yes. INTERVIEWER: The territories were not occupied. DR. LEWIS: Yeah, the parts of Palestine which were not included in Israel, that weren't held by Israel at the time of the cease fire, were occupied by the neighboring Arab states. That's to say, Syria in the north, Jordan in the east, and Egypt in the south. The Jordanians and next to those territories, made them part of Jordan, and conferred citizenship on the inhabitants. The other two did not. They regarded them as occupied territories, and did not give citizenship. The reasons why Arabs left, like the reasons why so many Jews left Arab countries at the time, have been much argued about, and like so many other cases during and immediately after wars, there's a mixture of different reasons. Some were certainly driven out, many more fled in the normal disorder of a conflict situation. 00:35:56>>> It's interesting, I think, to compare the partition of Palestine in 1948, with the partition of India in 1947 in the previous year, a similar operation in another British dependency, again arising from the establishment of a new state. Much greater numbers were involved in the partition of India. Where the numbers who fled or were driven - Muslims fleeing from India to Pakistan, Hindus fleeing or driven from Pakistan to India, there it was not hundreds or thousands, but millions that were involved. And the interesting difference is that they were all resettled within a comparatively short time. Whereas the Palestine refugees were preserved in camps, from then till now. The major difference, I think, was that the United Nations was not involved in the partition of India. And there was, therefore, no apparatus for conserving this problem. INTERVIEWER: Back to the American story END OF TAPE