icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm
20 Sep, 2012 04:19

‘US policies real fire fuelling Muslim anger at Anti-Islam film’

An aggressive US foreign policy coupled with Islamophobic American attitudes is the reason for the fiery global backlash to a recent anti-Islam film, Middle East expert Lawrence Davidson explained to RT.

Unfortunately, the massive protests that have taken place in Muslim countries will only increase Islamophobia amongst the American public, which has very little context to understand what is really going on, believes Davidson who is a Professor of Middle Eastern History at the West Chester University.RT:The Obama administration maintains that all this chaos is because of the film. What are your thoughts?Lawrence Davidson: The upset about the film comes from a much broader and much older context. Anger in the Middle East that we see today is the same anger that has essentially brought on the 9/11 attacks. And the context for those attacks were ongoing policies of the United States, sanctions policies that hurt innocent civilians, the support of Israel against the Palestinians, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Libya. The general policies of the United States have created a context for anger and because we have not addressed this at all from 9/11 till today we see it again.RT:If this is all a reaction to America's foreign policies in the region what is Washington supposed to do? Many of the policies are rooted in security and economy – why would the US sacrifice vital interests?LD: Many of these policies are rooted in response to special interests. Particularly the relationship with Israel is almost completely a punch in the special interests. In terms of economics you don’t have to back dictatorships in order to get the type of economic arrangements that you want, for instance with Vietnam – we fought a war and now we are trading and negotiating with them. I think that security and economics come much easier and much more securely when you adjust your policies to the expectations of the populations that you are dealing with.RT:What are you thoughts on the content of the anti-Islam film that incited the angry protests and the French cartoons being released? Where do you draw the line on free speech? Where you draw the line is – is it free speech or is it incitement to riot? If you can demonstrate that the activities are premeditated, that they are contrived essentially to get a violent reaction – then that’s not a free speech, that’s incitement to riot. And I think this film is exactly that – the incitement to riot.RT:Regardless of reasons, the protests demonstrate a deep anger with the U.S. in the Muslim world. But how do you think the Western public will react? Will they understand, or will it increase Islamophobia? LD: It will increase Islamophobia. The American public in any case does not understand. It doesn’t understand because it gets no information except variants on Islamophobic kind of interpretations. So there is no context for the American people to understand what’s going on. That’s why policies haven’t changed – there is no demand for policies to change.