By Erin Miller

Editor in chief

When journalist Rami Khouri spoke at Monday's Great Decisions lecture, he was able to present views of eastern and western societies from both the inside and the outside of each.

``I feel very much a part of both worlds,'' Khouri said while presenting his thoughts on Israel, the Middle East and the United States approach to terrorism.

Khouri, the final speaker in the World Affairs Council Great Decisions lecture series, is an American-born Palestinian-Jordanian.

The first topic discussed was action taken by the United States in retaliation against terrorist forces. While the desire for retaliation is understood and, to a certain extant a right to do so is granted by most of the world, Khouri said many people worldwide worry about the exact nature of the retaliation.

``There is a new and complex and unknown dynamic as the U.S. pursues the antiterrorist strategy,'' he said. ``It's not clear where the new dynamic is going. We need to discuss these things with more depth, more clarity.''

One problem with continuing the discussion of terrorist attacks is that few Americans are willing to discuss their own potential culpability in spurring the attacks. Many Americans say this is not the time for such discussion.

Another problem with the current response, he continued, is that it is, for now, essentially an American-only response.

``This should be expanded to a real global war between democracy and justice and terrorism,'' he said. ``It's a problem if it stays only an American war.

The reality, he said, is more complex. A better way of discussing the situation is to look at it through the answers to four important questions: why did the attack happen, why is there a widespread dislike of America, is the U.S. response going to backfire and what can be done?

First, he addressed the causes of the attacks in September and the continuing threats since.

``It's amazing that we don't have an agreement [on the cause],'' Khouri said. ``I think this is because there has been a tendency to mix together different groups. The challenge is to separate the different strands (religious, economic, political, governmental and issues of historical memory).''

Second, Khouri asked the audience to forget, for a moment, the smaller terrorist groups and look at the widespread ideas about the United States and U.S. foreign policy among inhabitants of the Middle East. While most people will readily agree that the terrorists were wrong to act in the manner in which they did, they are not willing to give up their criticisms of the United States.

Why is there an anti-American environment at all? Khouri presented a variety of reasons coupled with a disclaimer saying that he was not vouching for the legitimacy of all of the reasons, but was giving them because they are arguments commonly cited in the Middle East. Some of those reasons were the U.S.'s use of other countries for its own good; the unbalanced position the United States takes in the Arab-Israeli conflict; U.S. policy on Iraq; unilateral actions taken by the U.S.; U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia

``It is important to talk to determine which are legitimate and which are not,'' Khouri said.

Third, Khouri again touched on the U.S. right to respond to terrorist attacks, but pointed out that similar responses in the early 1990s may have led to the most recent attacks.

``I see a clear line between how the U.S. acted and [the] development of this new wave of terror,'' he said. ``The U.S. may be laying the groundwork for future attacks. [The actions] are troubling signs of future trends.''

Finally, he discussed what the best method for ending terrorism might be. It is not, he said, answering violence with violence.

``We have many examples of when there was terrorism and the terrorism stopped,'' he said. ``Other terrorism lasted a long time. [Look at] Northern Ireland. Strong actions didn't stop terrorism.''

What worked in Northern Ireland was sustained discussion between the two sides by a neutral mediator.

``There were many issues in Northern Ireland,'' he said. ``The United States looked at these one by one and came up with solutions for both sides. The key element is that the parties work together.''

Khouri's then turned to another specific problem - the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S. role in that conflict. If traced to its roots, that conflict actually began just over 100 years ago, he said.

He noted that, according to current opinion polls, both groups are almost as willing to live with some sort of compromise as they are willing to support continued fighting.

Israelis see their position as one of defending their survival as a people. If they do not keep this land, they will be overtaken by the other Arab countries. Palestine sees it as a war of liberation. If they do not fight, they will lose autonomy.

``You have these two completely contradictory views,'' he said. ``The passage of time is only going to make things worse. Neither side is going to win and neither side is going to submit to the other.''

But, contributing to the lack of conclusion has been the way in which negotiations have been handled, particularly by the United States.

``The reason we haven't achieved success is that the starting point is that Israel has more rights,'' Khouri said.

In the end, Khouri said, he can only present the information. What is needed is honest discussion by Americans and non-Americans about the roots of terrorism and the equal rights granted to Palestine and Israel nations.

``Most people have opted for easier answers,'' he said. ``The level of rigor and honesty required is much higher.''