Focus 580; The Impact of International War on Terrorism on Islamic Political Movements and Democracy

Good morning and welcome to focus 580 This is our telephone talk program. My name is David Inge. Glad to have you with us this morning. This morning we'll have another program that's intended to to try to talk about implications of results of the international war on terrorism that came in response to the attacks that happened here in the United States on September 11th and we have tried in various sorts of ways with different people to talk about with this means. And so this morning conversation is another in that series and I expect we'll be talking about in different ways for a long time to come this morning and in this first part of the show. Our guest is buggered in our feet. He is a visiting assistant professor of political science here at the University of Illinois and we'll be talking a bit about what this so-called international war on terrorism might mean for Islamist political movements. And democracy around the world. Questions of course are welcome as we have our conversation and anybody's interests that it was interested as welcome to call we ask callers is just that people try to be brief. We did and we

asked that as so that we can keep things moving along and involve as many people as possible but anyone is welcome to call the number here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have a toll free line that's good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 3 3 wy allow toll free 800 to 2 2 W at any point you like give us a call. You're welcome to do that. Well thanks very much for being on. I'm pleased to be here. I guess we should start out on the most basic kind of level and in a way talk about what it is that we're talking about when one talks about Islamist political movements. What. And that may bring to mind for people who are listening certain images certainly of those places where Islamist movements have resulted in widespread social change and changes of regimes and big changes in entire nations places like Iran and Afghanistan just to name two.

But in a broader sense really what is it that we're talking about. Truly when we talk about the Islamists movement really we have to. I think we have to look at it from a broader perspective. As far as I can tell the former's and these Islamist movements are basically reformers although they differ a lot on the means and the agendas in the final goals. But the essence of these movements are reformers and as far as I can tell from the history of the of the Muslim world which is about 15 centuries there has always been movements that looked for reform within the state of Muslims. The first ones occurred basically about 40 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammed of Islam. He established the first the Slavic States proceed in my DNA and now Saudi Arabia. Then the first revolved for

reform started in the about 30 years after his day his death. And it has been a continuous trend in the Islamic world. But the most recent phenomenon that we are witnessing today is basically has emerged with I would say around the early part of the 20th century. Well. Maybe late in the eighteenth century early in the 20th 19th century early 20th century the same idea was there the same essence which is the form to the form. The condition of the Muslim society to try to establish an Islamic state. But this is a very broad agenda a very wide spectrum of views. The means and as well as the strategies and goals. Well does I guess that. I think that probably people when they hear that this kind of language we talk about Islamist movements think about

movements that are interested in establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic law a place where there is no distinction really drawn between the their religious establishment and the political establishment that is that a sense that it is all one. Now is that. Is that an overbroad statement to say that is what the agenda is of all of these movements. Not really it's not an overstatement. I think the contemporary movements do agree on two on two on two items. First one is to re-establish the Islamic State. Of course what do they mean by Islamic State. This is a wide spectrum. And the second agenda is to restore the Muslim society to the basic values the basic morals and norms of Islam. But beyond these two common items on their agendas then they differ a lot in terms of means in terms of

dollars in terms of for example whether they use violence whether they they work within the system or they try to topple the system itself. So but yes I think you're right when when we use the term Islamist we mean that these people are looking toward reestablishing an Islamic state. But then when you say it's not a big state is it exactly the state that was established 15 almost 15 hundred years ago in many you know. Or is it much modern type of Islamic state and this is where you have really a wide spectrum. If you take the case of the virtual movement or the new date has changed its name now in Turkey. They're really not looking into toppling that system of democracy that exist in Turkey. They would like to work within the system. However if you take people like the jihad in Egypt for example they're against the system.

And then you have in between you have Sudan where people have been able to reach power in and become part or become the system in fact. But then recently the president who is from the Army has just removed them from power basically through a wide coup d'etat. You have the example of Algeria where the US that was so much on the news was able to reach almost reach power through elections in 1991 and then the army intervened and then canceled the elections. You have other cases such as in in Syria where the the Syrian government the previous president the father of this one half of Assad. Basically eradicated the movement back in 1982 by killing in a few days about 20000 people in this movement. We have another trend or another type of movements that exist in Saudi Arabia for example based on the ideology or the doctrine of business. So it's really a wide spectrum. It's why does Bactrim. In

terms of I guess a key a key question or a key issue is the use of violence because most unfortunately in the news media whenever you hear the term it's not just a movement or party they always bring with it violence. I think the use of violence is not restricted to the Islamist movements by any means. It's part of the 20th century type of revolutions. And if you take the Iranian revolution Well you compared to other revolutions that happen in China or elsewhere in the world there's not much of a difference in terms of using violence in terms of for example punishing the those who were against the revolution and then establishing a new type of ideology and then trying to expand the ideology beyond the borders. So it's part of the 20th century type of revolutions. Of course their best and certain ideology which is rooted are anchored in the slimiest or the Islamic values the religion and so on. But I think it's much more a 20th century phenomenon than an

Islamist prosy of conceit that is collared by the value system. Well I'm sure just to pick up on that point I'm sure that if one question people who were involved in some of these movements and raise this issue of use of arms to achieve their goals they would immediately say that our attempts at reform have been met by the governments of our countries with violence that they have used violence against us because they feel that we are a threat and so they I'm sure that they could eat. They could and would easily say that they're almost forced to turn to violence in part out of self-defense and in part because that's the only way they see to achieve their goal. You know I think this is an important point because any and even movement whether it's Lemieux store and communist or any type of reforming or

evolutionary movement always emerges within a context societal context political context. Most unfortunately in the in the Muslim world but more specifically in the Arab world. Since you know of colonialism and that. I can almost say that most of the in most contraries the regimes have been either extremely oppressive or at least very suppressive of any sort of genuine opposition. So de facto you're not allowed to establish a genuine opposition whether you're a communist or you are an Islamist or anything else. So then these studies have to deal with this situation. More to this these movements were targeted because they of course use a discourse which is very strongly attractive to the populace which is based on Islamic norms and values and in most of the Arab world and I would say

also the world at large the people are still Muslims. They practice either they pray they fast they do some rituals they believe strongly in their religion. Even for those who are not practicing. So when you use such a discourse to appeal to them basically you create creating a dichotomy. They have not much of a choice with me or against me. This does not imply that the slimiest movement are not genuine in their appeal. No they believe most of them believe in what they they preach. But the way to do. Basically they portray or they advance their ideology to the people. The people then would inherently accept them. At least I'm talking about the large populace I'm not talking for example about the intellectual about certain sectors of the population. So given the fact that you have video oppressive governments given

the fact that you're using a discourse which is a strongly accepted the de-facto within the populations those regimes do not have much of a legitimacy to claim to start with. They see you as a threat so it's a zero sum game basically. What you gain I lose what I lose what I gain you lose. And since they do not practice democratic ways of governing anyway so they resort to violence and then these movements are put into a corner. Of course this does not imply that some of these movements do not believe to start with and using violence. That's another dimension of the issue. It's a certain understanding I would say a historical understanding of the concept of jihad and war in Islam. Some people believe that they need to. Basically bare arms against the government and anyone else who stands in their ways. Goddess of the conditions or any other factors. But these are I would say a minority within the large spectrum of Islamist movements for the most part the other movements have been

pushed. Those who have resorted to violence have been pushed into a corner and it became an a matter of survival and existential threats basically. And I think the I would say the best but it's really the worst example in terms of hardship and in terms of casualties and human suffering that has occurred where the office was able to reach almost reach power it was poised to dominate the parliament through elections. But then it was forced into violence. How. First by canceling the elections the second round of national elections for the parliament. Second by removing all the top leadership which was quite moderate very moderate and put them in jail and then came the second class for the second rank type of leadership and they were pushed into violence consistently on a weekly basis especially after Friday prayers and you know the Muslim congregational prayer on Friday. People go to the mosque and they listen to different

types of Discourses. Including political discourse. The army would use even tanks to repress those people who are coming out of the mosques including everyone. You don't have to be an Islamist or belonging to or supporting the affairs. And this was done for about a year or so from January 92 to almost Jan. you're 93 and beyond. And then the FISA was banned legally. People did not have any other means to survive except using violence. Of course this is does not mean that one should accept or condone what they did because basically they responded as the Army wanted them to respond because the Army needed a justification internally as well as externally to completely suppress at least on this movement. Because these people were able almost to reach power through a back choose democratic norms and so on and so forth. And because of this the

Western audiences including It wasn't politicians had to say something against the coup. You have to speak up against the coup. This was not received well by the regime. So they had to justify their reprocessing or their oppression of the movement through a certain strategy and it became so fulfilling prophecy basically. Our guest this morning in this hour of focus 580 is better than our feet. He is visiting assistant professor of political science at University of Illinois we're talking some this morning about Islam most political movements what they are what their aims are. And we're going to also tie that to what's happening with the war on terrorism questions certainly a welcomed questions comments we have a caller here who's ready to go and others are welcome to call if you're here in Champaign Urbana or we are 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 we also have a toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us. 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. There's color in champagne.

I don't want to ask you. OK well I guess I have three questions. I don't know if I'll get through them all but I'll start with it without asking whether you might be able to discuss if there's a difference between Islamist movements before the late 19th early 20th century and the earlier ones given that the Arab world and Muslim world has experienced colonialism and whether they are you know nearly every sponsor to internal problems or to X tonal problems like colonialism and you know just what might be the relation to the West whether it has to do with colonialism or neo colonialism or you know some kind of infiltration of socialist or Marxist ideas. I mean these are supposed to be. You know Islam its religious movement. But are they not also influenced by more modern ideas and this is a question. Yeah I have one question How did you set the question. Okay yeah.

Yeah I think this is a very interesting question. Of course it's beyond me to answer this question in in such a short time but I think you're right. The this is not just movements they emerged as I said earlier in the show within certain historical conditions. And among those historical conditions when the was the ear of colonialism for example the Muslim Brotherhood which is one of the first Islamist movements that emerged in the Arab world more specifically in Egypt contributed very much to the. Not only to the internal conditions of Egypt itself by trying to change the king King them into a republic and so on back in the 40s but even before that they contributed to the issue of Palestine and they were opposed to Zionism before the establishment of Israel in 1948. And the forefathers of these of these Islamist movement

and then his his teachers Mohammed Abdul and then even before that the genetic DNA of honey were basically revolving against the era of colonialism. And what they perceived as not only just colonialism in terms of political domination but also a culture of domination and their mission was to revive the Islamic system of values including of course the political system. And in doing that they were in doubt tiddly more or less affected by the 20th century. Different types of ideologies. Whether it's Marxism whether it's capitalism whether And they were quite very eclectic in choosing different tenets of these ideologies or methods. For example the idea of the party which is a communist idea was very much seized upon by the

Islamists and used in pursuing their own agendas as a response to con Yani as me has definitely I mean in Nigeria another case where you had one of the first move organized movements to a battle against the French colonialism at least as far as trying to do. Teach the people trying to mobilize the people against colonialism back in the early 20th century was the Germany it's an Islam by nobody is. And this was not a political movement Percey But nonetheless he contributed to the preservation of the what we call today the energy and identity which is Muslim part and the other tenets also. So yes it's a response to communism. It's a response to even I would say the post 1945 world that has been dominated more less by the United States but also it's much more shaped by domestic conditions very specific to any

one of these movements other domestic conditions might be in part. Affected by outside economic pressures. Oh yes right. So then that leads me to my third question. You said that most of these muslim arab whatever I don't know what term to use the machine did not really allow genuine opposition and I was wondering you know why that might be is that because some of them like Saudi Arabia have Western support. Or is there some tradition of authority that people somehow believe that there are some father figure like Saddam Hussein who has the authority or you know the Caleb would have the authority. Why do you think this is that or there just has not been the same Western. Kind of structures and traditions institutions and you can't just plant them in overnight.

Well I think the this issue of course has different dimensions but one which is quite important is the way that the the specifically the Arab states were formed in most of them post 1945 in the Middle East and North Africa. These states did not exist before the eating of the enough colonialism. So the borders that we have today were basically a put down on a piece of paper by the French and the British and then these regimes that emerged from that process lacked a strong sense of legitimacy. So they had to to build enough legitimacy for the state not just for the government of even the state. And one of the the challenges that face the Arab world was whether to after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the 924 was whether to form a single state for the hall. And that was the ideology of pan-Arab isn't or to have different states in different parts of the Arab world. And this

remains a challenge to the states so the states have to engage into what we call as a process of state formation and in order to build legitimacy. It is a basic need loads too. I would say an existing dilemma for these regimes of course I'm not condoning the ways that they did that. This they they could have done it otherwise. I mean they could have used a very democratic means and so on. What have we have the example of Lebanon for example which has been a Democratic state seems to emerge in the and the early 20s and that EVEN HAVE AN to do the French mandate system before he became independent in the 40s. So the authors used oppressive means as a way to consolidate their regimes and to perpetuate the state against different challenges. The pen Arab was one challenge. The armies were always one challenge.

And also they had to deal with the external world except especially after the beginning of the Cold War in 1947 and then the superpower was trying to penetrate the region and to impose their own logic on the region. All of these challenges were at the same time constraints as well as the empowerment for these leaders. For example if you take the Egypt as a prominent case Jem'Hadar sort of play the card of the Cold War to suppress internal opposition and vice versa. Yeah OK. So then I guess I'll come to my second question and. And then hang up. I'm thinking about Israeli policy especially in the last week and how that is possibly going to affect Not that it's new in the Nats last week but it's particularly virulent and there's been a lot of some kind of a just information. Program I think on the part of the Israeli and the American government. But what do you think the

effect of of trying to humiliate and disable someone who's supposed to be your partner. And it how is this going to play among Palestinians or in the Arab world or among the mammas when they're told that the war is not against Muslims and that kind of thing. While of course the finest the brightest seen in the Israeli issue is it is a very tough one and that's why the world cannot song it easily so. I want to I want to be able to want to explain it quite easily but there are these a number of factors that that can that should be taken into account when talking about that issue. One of them is that you know we are those people are employed on both sides of the conflict in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Israeli government led by Sharon is doing what it is doing and it's just so fulfilling itself trying to put into a corner and then demonstrating to the world that this is not a

valid partner to talk to. But then well this is how the how did the process started by your own policies vice versa when how medicine Jihad and the other groups they carry on their suicide missions they undermine the authority of Fatah fed and then they tell the Palestinians see well this is not a good leader. So they just self fulfilling their prophecy. And these two extreme positions into the spectrum of the issue just driving the logic of the game. And that's why it's really it's extremely hard to find a. At least as a solution in the short term. Well appreciate the questions the color other folks are welcome to call with questions comments. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 that's for Champaign Urbana toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. And again to introduce our guest We're speaking with Bud in our field he's visiting assistant professor of political science at University of Iowa. We talked about you talked about the the Islamist movements as

being as rising in part out of an effort to reform their own countries and their own governments and their own societies and perhaps being interested in that and maybe in a slightly larger sense. You know they have regional concerns very clearly also though going back some time these movements have been have also. Been there to respond to or have reacted to European powers coming in to the region and drawing lines and doing what they might consider to be in interfering. We I think here in the West looking at these Islamist movements view it through our lens and see only what that means for us and for the west and see them. I think we don't really understand exactly their their local or their regional context. We just see them as being anti Western. And for that reason I consider them to

be a threat. How in how now or in what sense is it a reaction to the west western values. A part of these movements or an important motivating force to people who are involved in these movements. I think to be fair to the Islamist movements we cannot just with all of them into a single category. If you take someone like. House on a tour I'll be the leader of the Islamist movement in in Sudan. Even though he's portrayed here didn't the State Department as a terrorist but he's I would say quote unquote very much westernized. He has the most values of the democratic way of fluff of politics. In fact he graduated from the Sorbonne in Paris he's a he has a Ph.D. in international law and he was very from wanting

different European languages and he's traveled a lot in the western world and he's a very fluent speaker. Another one he's one of the leading Islamist people in Tunisia you know he's exiled in Britain. You cannot go back to Tunisia but also he has espoused most of the modern values of the democratic system. Of course this does not imply that all others have done so. So I think the most I would I would dare to say that most of these movements and not anti-Western from the sea they're anti foreign policies if I may use these terms. And one of the problems that we have been living in the West for quite some time now. I've even got some gray hair here. The one of the problems here.

It's good it's part of the democratic system that people trust their government. But also it's a vibrant democracy should not believe in the people that should believe in the institutions that what the forefathers set for this country and the politicians have different agendas. Not all of those agendas as we know for many from many episodes in the history of this country you take in the Nixon administration the Johnson administration many administrations politicians have different agendas. They have some heathen agendas person agendas as well as national agendas. And it's very hard to differentiate between the two because it's the same person each of them in the mind of the same person. So these are not just movements most of them out against the policy of interfering. That for example the US administrations have had in the Middle East and elsewhere in the mostly moot. And why is that important. Because these movements are engaged into a

survival and existential struggle with their governments then at least apparently who is supporting those governments those regimes. It's the United States government. So the friend of my enemy is my enemy. That's the logic and vice versa. By the way for the U.S. administration even though any administration any president has handlers of advisors and so on and so forth. But the way they play politics at the international level they portray things as being a zero sum game then this and that there are so many nuances among these Islamist movements or in any any single country. But as long as the U.S. what they believe or they define as being the U.S. national interest is at stake. And anyone who goes against that is against not only the U.S. administration you know they're portrayed as being anti Western. And this reminds me of the. President Bush

speech at the Congress after the September 11th events where he basically tried to redefine the international political discourse as a zero sum game. You're either with us or against us. That's fine. Who defines us what US Min's is it what the Bush administration means or is it what the Congress or the people at large do we have a national debate to which is supposed to be part of a vibrant democracy. And by just dividing the world into us vs. them then you don't give them give much choice to those people who are not against your values but maybe against your policies. Well let's I want to bring this back to the to the issue of. How governments in countries where the rise Lamas movements ever responded to those movements. And

when you have talked about the fact that in some cases some governments have used violence to to put those movements down. Now that we have this what we're calling this war on terrorism going is there the concern that places where they have used violence against these movements will feel even less constrained than in the past because of they will say well you have you know there are these people that you think are terrorists and will support you in the effort against them. But then there are these people that we think are terrorists. And if if we may not be looking for you or you to support us. But at the very least we're looking to you to not criticize us for whatever we do at home because we you know we say this is our this is our territory these are our problems as we define them you define your problems as you do we define ours as we do and everybody's going to leave everybody alone to do what they want I mean is is that is there that kind of concern.

Well most of Fortunately it's not just a concern and it's already happened. And I can give you two instances in Egypt and Nigeria. The president was received here in the White House I think twice this year the first time he came he had about 15 to 30 minute meeting with President Bush. That's President Bush. They talked mostly about the odd industry and all the economic issues. This was before the September 11th. Then he was invited up to the September 11th to talk about the coalition against international terrorism. And what's the June press which is very much a constrained press a very many pileated if not controlled by the state and the generals and the army and so on. The argument that has been proposed in that press which by the way portrays itself as being free but

it's very syndicated type of press in in one way. Then the argument that has been proposed is proposed. You see we've been telling you for 10 years that these people are a threat to everyone. We've been fighting them but you more or less accepted them in your countries. They gave asylum to their people. You gave them a forum for for proposing or at least propagating their ideologies and so on. Now we are vindicated you see. We've been telling you for 10 years and also in Egypt the same thing has happened. The Egyptian government has been engaged for about 10 to 12 years now against some not all the Psalmist movements but it's a free press as all the Psalmist movements but one specific Islamic movement that has resulted in violence is jihad which is not related to jihad in Palestine. They have been fighting a survival war on the side of the jihad movement with the

government. But now about two weeks ago I heard the Egyptian foreign minister and he was making this argument precisely U.S. president President Mubarak has called for a conference against international terrorism. Many years back. But you guys in the West refused and in fact you undid up harboring those terrorists. Of course for the Egyptian government any opposition group is a terrorist government. And we've heard for example here in the United States it is so much debate concerning the trying those people in the military tribunals Egypt has been doing it for 12 years now. So now they're telling see we've been doing it first. Now you're learning from us. And I think the impact of this on all Islamist movements will be just very serious. You're not allowed anymore but basically de

facto you're you're a terrorist you have to justify that you're not the cheeriest innocence is not the presumption. Guilt is the presumption. So it it it would not be unreasonable to think that what would likely result would be more violence not less. And that if these groups see the United States standing beside their governments and if they're opposed to their own governments then then there they're going to be more anger at least if not violence directed at the United States to some extent yes but those people need to have resources and they need to have a base for operation. And that base will not be found anywhere in the world now. That's my my prognosis at least. There people are being pursued in Europe here. Not really in the United States because we don't have many of those groups but in Europe Europe used to be a safe haven for those groups only snow mutes I'm not

talking about those who have resorted to violence and your position Islamist groups know they have been basically pursued by different either the legal system or by their own governments and they don't have a safe haven anywhere to go and those resources are needed for any type of opposition any type of opposition whether the. We have we have an increase in violence I doubt it very much. Maybe it's just the opposite violence or legalized violence by the governments against those groups. We know it's an international actor raising a voice of concern. Let's we have a couple of other callers we have somebody here on cell phone and I want to get them here right here line one. Hello. Oh yes I have a question. It may be a simplistic view but as for the political movements they seem to be all aimed at. Back with

Islamic in mind you know religious movement from my view but I should say there is a political movement. Maybe ship more to economic for their countries the Arab countries in a sense that from one point I see the Palestinians throwing rocks and rioting in the streets. These are all young young men and in the United States. You don't see young man on the streets or in Iraq and rioting. If they're working they're all working. They have something to do and maybe political movements or maybe should have more separation of church and state. And maybe you're hung up on that political moment that makes you too tightly with their religion.

Let me stop you to comment on that please. Yeah thank you very much. I think you are right this is an important question. However let me briefly answer this question if I may for any and economic system to thrive you have to have stability if you have turmoil if you don't have to be. If people fear for their lives Of course they cannot engage in two economic ventures. I won't answer the issue of the petty seniors and so on as for that's a different issue but. For the Islamist movements many of these had to have economic programs they don't just have political programs. Take the example of Turkey the Snohomish movement into it is almost as old as the key itself as a country as it was even able to reach power in the early 90s through elections

and within the system. But then it was pushed pushed by by the army bit by bit to not only leave power but also they were suppressed they were prevented they were banned as a political party they and you were going to use themselves in another political party they were banned the second time and then legal proceedings are being undertaken against them for the third time. And of course this party has an economic program. Another example is in Sudan where the Islamist political party also they do have economic programs that they're concerned. In fact. In practical terms they've been able to provide a lot of social welfare. For the people than their own regimes. And including for example you mention the case of the Palestinians how mass which is only dimly was a pure social welfare type of movement. They have been much more effective than the Arafat's authority TDP Ali Sina Foti in providing welfare for their own people

economic welfare and other types of welfare. So you know the FIA was able to do a nice job in providing certain types of markets that were subsidized. So these are a concern but I think the problem is when you don't have stability when you're not allowed to exist when you have an existential threat you don't have much choice of thinking about economic programs if you are allowed to run for elections yes you have to give your economic program but if you're just engaging to a struggle of existence I would believe it's very hard for anyone. Of course I'm not apologizing for anybody I'm just stating facts here and that he sees now how it's happening in the Indian slum equalled. We just have about six seven minutes left. Our guest is bedridden our fee his visiting assistant professor of political science University of Illinois. We have two callers. Next in line is Charleston line for help. Yes I wonder if your guest might address the issue of. I don't I don't I just view him. Which becomes the

object of all of our social. President social institutions and how does this play out in the end a visual institution such as religion and politics and economics which is the goal in my understanding of most human activity is to reach one's goals no matter how they affect. The indigenous peoples war established a unity such as the Islam in the world and others and capitalist imperialism in my view now has taken precedents over everything. But but other institutions still project themselves towards others to religion and heaven. Or if it is imperialism in politics and economics and. This push by all the social institutions seem to drive themselves toward this imperialist war this heavenly view. Even under capitalism you

know well if we can just get world wide capitalism all everybody will be just fine. Which is patently untrue. I'll hang up and listen thank you. All right thank you very much. Of course this is a very important as well as difficult and a wide question but I think that from my understanding both Leninism as well as capitalism the doom is the dimension off. You know each of these people believe which is delicious to mention that not everything can be explained by economics or by the material conditions to go back to Marxism. So these a decision self-worth only that human values do have an impact you know daily lives and most of these movements believe that religion should be should not be explained in terms. And also they believe that it should not be opposed to material terms it's not in a competition to basically feed into one another and sometimes reinforce and sometimes undermine one another

trying get one more champagne County here line one high regarding to the question about why are all of these politics framed in terms of religion. I think we have a couple of very graphic examples that aren't. Well one of them is common upon is that the U.S. recruited the most zealot zealot full of the military and the most the radical Islam to fight the Soviets and there's actually some evidence that it was it was purposely instigated to be the Russian's Vietnam but the other example that may be is also maybe is less widely comment on is that the Israelis were funding Hamas when the PLO was seen as the major enemy and they were using the Islamic movement as a counterbalance to the secular politics of the PLO. And and and now you know reap the reap the wind or something. But.

Well I think I'd better. We were going to have a chance to respond to that hanging in the air. Thank you. Well I'm not sure about the second thing that you mention that is concerning Hamas being founded by being funded by Israel. But as far as the other one the U.S. contribution to the emergence of those people in terms of resources Yes but the the the thinking the ideology existed already there. And it's not a surprise that that that those those groups thrived because they had a message they had an ideology that appealed to the population. It may be hearing the news you hear about these people because of what's happening in Afghanistan the the these days or happened in during the Cold War and the war the Russian war against the people and so on. But Islamist movements have existed before during and after the Cold War. They have been shaped by that logic by that conflict but it's not three need the US that had prompt the emergence of these it was much more of a

mystic reaction to the misty conditions as well as international upheavals near the end of the colonial era. We are going to have to stop there because we've used the time I want to say to our guest thank you very much. Thank you to have me here it's been a pleasure. You know our fee he is a visiting assistant professor of political science here at the University of Illinois.