Part Twenty-Four
(This is a translation from the original Arabic, offered so that my grandchildren, and others of their generation, may understand something of their history— a history they were denied when they were uprooted without choice.)
Where To? Remove NATO from Arab Lands — III
In the previous part, I promised to address the practical means by which efforts might be undertaken to expel NATO from Arab lands.
Those who know me personally—or through my writings—are well aware that I am not what might be called an optimist. Thus, when I say that I am confident NATO will ultimately be driven out of Arab territory, I do not do so out of naïve hopefulness or as a morale-boosting gesture for a defeated people—of whom, regrettably, there are many today. I say this because of a universal truth: tyranny is never eternal. Were you religious, you might express this truth through the divine saying: “And such days We alternate among the people.” If you are not, then history itself teaches you that every oppressive imperial power—no matter how long its reach or how vast its dominion—inevitably collapses.
Accordingly, the current American-Zionist domination will, without doubt, come to an end on our lands, after the United States fractures internally and its constituent republics descend into conflict over the remnants of a crumbling capitalist system. With the fall of American tyranny, NATO will collapse, all its forces will withdraw from our lands, and the Zionist entity in Palestine will disappear with the demise of the power that created it—just as the Crusader state in the Levant vanished in the thirteenth century when Western Europe lost cohesion in its hybrid imperial project.
One might ask: If you are convinced of this inevitability, why then burden yourself with the task of seeking ways to expel NATO from Arab lands? My answer is twofold.
First, because I wish to hasten this inevitable outcome. Even events that are historically certain can be accelerated, for time—at least as we experience it—is relative, and has no existence before God.
Second—and far more importantly—because of the necessity that the Arab individual actively participates in the struggle to reclaim a dignity that has been squandered for far too long, and whose violation must now cease. It is a mark of humiliation and disgrace for the Arab to remain a passive spectator while history determines his fate. Participation itself restores a measure of dignity, and dignity is indispensable in the process of nation-building, for the dignity of a nation flows from the dignity of its people. God has said: “We have honoured the children of Adam.” Is it then permissible that we accept the humiliation of those whom God has honoured?
How, then, can we participate in accelerating NATO’s departure from Arab lands?
The point of departure lies in convincing the Arab individual of the necessity of removing every foreign military presence from our lands. In other words, this struggle begins and ends with the conduct of the Arab citizen. It is fundamentally a project of self-education and collective awareness, a responsibility borne by every Arab who seeks a dignified and secure future for coming generations.
Today, all Arab lands lie under NATO’s guardianship in one form or another. Some are fully occupied; others are partially occupied through military bases; and others may lack permanent bases yet remain fully accessible—by land, sea, and air—whenever NATO chooses. The Arab’s mode of resistance will therefore vary according to the country in which he lives, though these variations are marginal, for the common reality remains NATO’s insistence on maintaining its presence in Arab lands.
Before outlining what is required of the Arab individual, one fundamental truth must be emphasized: the liberation of Arab lands from foreign military occupation is not a matter of political opinion, voting, or referendum. The ruler of a state such as Kuwait, for example, has no right to claim that popular consent legitimizes NATO’s presence on a third of Kuwait’s territory. Nor does the Prime Minister of Iraq have the right to sign treaties granting Americans military bases in Mesopotamia—even if he was elected on such a platform.
What this means is that liberation is not subject to opinion or democratic consensus. Human history confirms this unequivocally. National liberation movements have always been movements of minorities. Had freedom depended on referenda, many nations would never have been liberated. Freedom is not the product of what is misleadingly called “democracy.” The destinies of nations are shaped by minorities—this has always been so, and always will be. The Arabs are no exception.
Moreover, the very borders dividing Arab lands were drawn by the same powers that later formed NATO. Every Arab, in any Arab country, has the right—and indeed the duty—to regard any Arab land that is occupied or violated as his own responsibility to liberate. It is one land, artificially fragmented by the very force that must now be resisted and expelled.
The first obligation of the Arab individual is non-cooperation with NATO’s presence. This non-cooperation takes multiple forms. At its minimum, it entails the boycott of all products originating from NATO countries occupying Arab lands. At present, NATO’s presence is primarily embodied by three states: the United States, Britain, and Turkey. It is neither difficult nor impractical for Arabs to boycott these three in all spheres, as alternatives exist for everything they produce. Such a boycott can be practiced by any Arab, regardless of political conditions or authoritarian repression, for no authority can effectively prevent individual consumer resistance. This obligation extends even to Arabs who, for whatever reason, reside within these very countries.
The next step depends on the country in which the Arab lives. In the Gulf Cooperation Council states—which are, in effect, a vast NATO military camp littered with bases and crowded fleets—the Arab citizen remains politically underdeveloped and often unwilling or unable to participate in a struggle for dignity. Awareness-building in these societies is therefore slow and difficult. Yet the duty of the enlightened minority is to root the conviction that liberation from NATO’s grip is essential throughout the Arabian Peninsula. They must also cease cooperation—whenever possible and by whatever means—with NATO states operating militarily on their soil. This inevitably requires the sacrifice of privileges, but dignity is never free.
I must here express a profound reproach toward the honourable and well-intentioned Arabs of the Gulf. Any call upon them to oppose NATO’s presence must be inseparable from a second, glaring absence: the lack of serious public demand that their governments treat Arab migrants as brethren rather than foreigners. The cultivation of a shared Arab belonging would strengthen belief in an Umma capable of defending itself without reliance on foreign “protectors.” Genuine Arab fraternity in the Peninsula requires openly demanding that governments treat Arab migrants as Iraq, Egypt, and Syria have done. This belief is inseparably linked to the demand for NATO’s departure from Arab lands.
In Arab countries outside the GCC, the situation differs. In several of these states, Arabs have risen against imperial domination, sacrificed, fallen, risen again, and persisted. They are active participants in resistance, not passive observers. The duty of Arabs in Iraq and Syria is to fight NATO’s presence on their lands, regardless of the pretexts that enabled it. Iraqis must resist American and Turkish forces; Syrians must resist American, British, and Turkish occupation. Resistance must continue until NATO’s forces are entirely expelled.
It must be remembered that more than seventy years have passed since World War II, yet American occupation forces remain entrenched in Germany and Japan, despite their economic and political development. This alone proves that American-Zionist imperialism does not withdraw peacefully or through diplomacy—it must be forced out. The notion that American occupation can be ended through dialogue is a dangerous illusion.
The removal of NATO from Arab lands is not merely a temporary political project. It is an attempt to restore a historical balance disrupted since the Crusader era, when Germanic tribes first established military footholds on our lands—footholds that weakened at times only to return more forcefully over the past two centuries. NATO, now controlled by Zionist capital, has played a central role in the destruction and fragmentation of the Arab nation. Its crimes are too numerous to enumerate here.
What, then, are the contours of the Arab state I envision?
That is what I shall attempt to explore next.
To be continued…