New York-President Barack Obama made two mistakes in addressing the whirlwind issue of an Islamic center and mosque being built near the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, meters away from Ground Zero – the site of the terrorist attack which destroyed the twin towers, perpetrated by 19 Muslim terrorists. His first mistake was to enter the wrestling ring while he should have left the matter where it should have remained, in New York City with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who defended erecting the mosque in this location, saying: “It's a shame we even have to talk about this”. His second mistake was toning down his stances and backing down on the next day from his unequivocal support for erecting the mosque near Ground Zero, shedding doubt on the wisdom of such a decision. The President, of Muslim roots, thus appeared weak, hesitant and retreating before the campaign of hatred waged by the extreme right-wing and the political campaign launched by the Republican Party for its benefit in the midterm elections, equally important for both the Democratic and Republican parties. What President Obama should do now is chose the important issue and the appropriate timing to turn the tables on those who describe him as weak to prove his strength where strength is useful. This would require him to anticipate what is on the mind of those who are preparing a fierce campaign against him for when he is forced to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to save the two-state solution and protect the US's national interest. Perhaps a fundamental element on the mind of those who have inflamed the issue of the mosque was that of anticipating pressures on Israel, which refuses to engage in direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on the basis of a reference agreed upon by the whole world – that of the two-state solution and of ending the 1967 occupation of Palestinian territories with land swaps and safety for both Israel and Palestine. US Envoy Senator George Mitchell is still persevering, patient and hopeful, exerting efforts to launch the sought-after direct negotiations. Arab ministers have given their support to the Palestinian Authority engaging in direct negotiations, in what was almost a surprise, this in order to comply with US efforts and to prove their sincere desire to make peace with Israel and to recognize its existence on the basis of the two-state solution. The Quartet on the Middle East, comprised of the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union, is working hard on a language that would entice Israel into engaging in direct negotiations on the basis of the reference unanimously agreed upon by the Quartet in terms of the goals of negotiations and the framework of such goals. However, Israel is so far haggling to hold negotiations for the sake of negotiating and manipulating time. And until today, Israel has been repeatedly eluding the two-state solution, under this excuse and that pretext, manipulating the terms used while it in fact is not serious about implementing such a solution and putting it into practice. The connection between the two-state solution and the crisis of the mosque in New York would not have emerged at all, had it not been for the message always carried by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a message of moderation among Muslims and of dialogue with other religions. Thus, from the point of view of Imam Feisal, extremism can be weakened and moderation strengthened in order to defend against terrorism when it comes from within the ranks of Muslims. Those like Imam Feisal call for openness and coexistence, and support the choice of negotiations and peace. They are the other voice standing against the voices that reject peace and negotiations, and that incite towards using force to obtain one's rights. Imam Feisal is the voice calling for reason, wisdom, patience and understanding. What has resulted from the campaign against him by US bellowers, who are extremism incarnate, is that such bellowing has weakened such a voice and provided ammunition for the voices of extremism, violence and revenge. Indeed, those in the ranks of extremism are today insulting those who had told them that the US was fair and open; that it respected its constitution and did not distinguish between its citizens; that its media was free and independent; and that dialogue within it was constructive. Such insults represent ammunition for taking revenge against moderate Muslims, who represent a cornerstone in facing violence and terrorism. The naivety of the majority of US public opinion and media is blinding them to a reality of the utmost simplicity and clarity, namely that what is referred to as the war on terror in defense of the United States and of US national interest necessarily requires partnership with the ranks of moderation within the Muslim popular base, wherever it may be. The fanaticism of the majority of US media and public opinion against Arabs, and their spontaneous bias in favor of Israel prevent the necessary recognition that resolving the Palestinian issue with a solution that would be fair to both the Israeli and Palestinian sides represents a cornerstone for eliminating the pretexts of extremists within Muslim ranks. Indeed, the formula is of the utmost clarity: resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict equals winning half the battle against the terrorism and violence coming from Muslims who are angry at the US because of its prejudice in the issue of Palestine. Resolving this conflict would remove at least half of the pretexts from the hands of extremists who have hijacked the Palestinian cause and who exploit it to their benefit. Those who are ignorant of such a reality are only pretending to be so, as they are in fact biased and fanatic. Either that or naivety and ignorance truly are a plague eating away at the core of the US. Of course, there are among US public opinion and journalists those who have clearly, boldly and insistently stood in the face of those who have turned the issue of the Islamic center and mosque into an electoral one, one against Islam or one against Barack Obama. And certainly the stances of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who are both members of the Republican Party, are bold and principled stances which leaderships, public opinion and the media in the Muslim world should take note of before launching an all-encompassing attack against the US, its rulers, its politicians and its media. Certainly as well, the debate over the location of the mosque and Islamic center has not at all been settled in favor of the right to erect the center – a constitutional right which all Americans agree over at the legal, commercial and religious levels. Indeed, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his partners in making such a decision could have examined in depth the meaning of building the center so close to Ground Zero, and what this could involve in terms of arousing emotions or arousing hatred for Islam. Imam Feisal is a friend, and so is his wife Daisy Khan. They are always present at international forums, working for dialogue and openness. They are the picture of moderation in Islam. Daisy says that “the location is a strong symbol because the proximity (to Ground Zero) for sending a message of moderation through an Islamic center that celebrates peace, coexistence and prayer together only raises the voice of moderation and drowns out the voice of extremism”. In spite of the truth of her opinion about moderation and extremism, not taking note of the impact of the “proximity” at the emotional level for some and at the exploitative level for others is unwise. It would have been better for Imam Feisal to think carefully and to anticipate reactions. Perhaps the issue of “proximity” in Imam Feisal's considerations stems from his desire for the Islamic center and mosque to represent a platform for turning over the chapter of Muslims being pegged as terrorists by the mere mention of 9/11. Perhaps he wagered on the trust paced in him by the US State Department, making him the bearer of the message of understanding, clarification, dialogue and working together with moderate men of religion in the Muslim world, as well as Christian and Jewish men of religion. Perhaps he was wrong. Perhaps he was right. The fact of the matter is that the issue will become more complicated when faced with clearly moving forward with erecting the center and mosque. Indeed, the battle started by parties violently hostile to Islam and Muslims could turn into violent confrontation, especially as stupidity, racism and hatred, when brought together, can lead to violence and terrorism itself. It would thus be wise for the Republican Party to restrain the likes of Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who compared building the mosque to “Nazis […] put[ting] up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington”. This kind of inflammatory statement leads to provoking violence in reaction and may perhaps lead to bringing terrorist attacks to US soil once again. Then the Democratic Party would obtain the ammunition to accuse the Republican Party of provoking and inviting violence and revenge. "All of this enters into this political game referred to as elections. And every wave of elections turns the US, -with its media and politicians, into a chorus having fun with its idiotic little games without any sense of responsibility. "It's the Politics, stupid." It is the time of turning major political issues into a feast of amusement and distraction for the people of the world's sole superpower."This is terrible and frightening, and does not call for bringing the United States into a state of conflict with Islam because of a center or a mosque near Ground Zero. More important is to take note of the necessity of working out the reasons for the disagreement with the Muslim world. Palestine certainly represents a core disagreement that should be removed from the battle against Muslim extremism. President Barack Obama, as well as the senior US military leaders who are leading the battle against Muslim extremism, have said many times and continue to say that the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is in United States' higher national interest, and that this ongoing conflict represents a fundamental hurdle to reforming the US's relationship with the Muslim world and to the war against Muslim extremism wherever it may take place. Men of religion within the ranks of moderation, the likes of Imam Feisal, are precisely those whom this administration and the previous administration's “popular diplomacy” campaigns have sought to find and urge to send a message of moderation, in order to form the partnership necessary for defeating extremism. What has taken place in the US over the issue of erecting a mosque and Islamic center in Park 51 is equivalent to firing bullets at the feet of the sniper himself – this in addition to placing valuable ammunition in the hands of extremism: that of hanging moderation within the ranks of men of religion.
