The events of Sept. 11 have to be seen in two ways � as the predictable and inevitable consequence of our unchecked imperial policies and as the growth of Islamism as the only popular alternative to the status quo. The irony is that these aren’t mutually exclusive forces; in fact, more than anything, they reinforce each other.

Such was the conclusion New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof arrived at in his piece, “Strengthening Extremists,” which appeared in the June 19th edition.

The article’s perspective is that of a concerned pro-Israel partisan worried about the consequences certain policies will have for the West. Kristof is a typical liberal who seeks a kinder, gentler status quo; he isn’t concerned with the immorality of Israel’s siege, or the humanity of Gazans, for that matter; his concern is whether Israel’s � and the West’s � policies will work.

“‘If the U.S. and Israel had formed a Joint Commission to Support Hamas Extremists and Bolster Iranian Influence, they could hardly have done a better job,”‘ he wrote, underscoring his concern about a strong Iran. Commenting on Israel’s blocking three Fulbright scholars from leaving for America, his colonial perspective can be deduced from this sentence:

“Educating Gazans might help build a contingent of moderates” � moderate being code for “pro-Western.”  Nowhere does he label Israel’s actions a war crime, and he failed to mention � let alone denounce � the reason for the collective punishment: to undo the electoral will of Palestinians and push Hamas out of power. Kristof showed that he’s the one who needs an education.

Despite these major flaws, he does have a point. Islamism thrives under oppressive conditions, and in the case of Gaza, it’s Israel and the United States which not only enabled Hamas’ rise, but also its popularity over the “‘moderate”‘ Fatah as well. As long as Abu Mazen gives photo ops in Jerusalem and Washington, DC, Palestinians will regard him as a puppet; as long as there is a siege, Hamas will be seen as legitimate.

“There are no legitimate regimes in the Arab Middle East,” Said K. Aburish wrote in his 1996 book, “A Brutal Friendship,” and that statement is largely true today. Elections in late 2005, early 2006 in the region seem to prove that point, where groups like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah and Hamas made huge electoral gains. The irony is that Washington pushed for these elections, but retreated when the results were not to their liking.

Islamism is the vanguard of anti-colonial resistance, and the West and its allies have only themselves to blame: first, they nurtured it as a counterweight against nationalist and communist opposition movements, then engaged in policies that earned the wrath of those whom they had nurtured.

The actual equation isn’t that simple, since Islamist movements always opposed Western influence and secular dictatorship, but it’s an unalterable fact that this two-tiered involvement is what made these various theocratic movements what they are today.

Probably one of the best examples of this is the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran. The revolution that ushered the Islamists into power in 1979 created a bastion of anti-Americanism that began to relax after Khomeini’s death in 1989 and especially after the election of Mohammed Khatami in 1997. Beginning this decade, social restrictions were relaxed, and � after 9/11 � segments of the government sought rapprochement with Washington.

For the assistance Tehran paid to the U.S. during the war against the Taliban, Bush returned the favor by denouncing Iran as part of the mythical Axis of Evil. The U.S. spurned an offer of negotiations in 2003, “including Iran’s nuclear program, its support for Hizbullah and Hamas and terrorism in general, and stabilizing Iraq,” according to Newsweek, Feb. 8 2007.

In a June 1998 article called “Soft on Satan: Challenges for Iranian-U.S. Relations,” published in Middle East Policy Council Journal, author Charles Kurzman wrote:

“We need to understand that the isolationist position in Iran can draw on a populist reservoir of distrust of foreign powers.”

With these factors and two occupation forces in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan � along with historical grievances like the 1953 coup and supporting the dictatorial Shah � it’s no wonder that Iranians elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In short, Islamism’s strength is proportionate to Western involvement, meddling and outright violence. Whether it’s the outright violence of the Jewish state, the occupation of Iraq or the arrogant maneuvering against Iran, Islamism historically thrives on a combination of collaboration and antagonism vis a vis the West.

As John Esposito put it in his book, “The Islamic Threat,” “U.S. presence and policy, not a genetic hatred of Americans, is often the primary motivating force behind acts against American government, business, and military interests.” Or, as Stephen Zunes put it in Tinderbox, “the growth of extremist movements is oftentimes proportional to the suffering inflicted on the populations from which they arise. In many instances, that suffering is inflicted or supported by the United States.”

But if a pro-establishment liberal is opposed to the policy of collective punishment in Gaza � albeit on pragmatic, not moral grounds � then who would support such a concept?

One such person wrote that Israel should “permit no transportation of people or goods beyond basic necessities,” “Implement the death penalty against murderers” and “raze � villages from which attacks are launched.”

That person was Daniel Pipes in a Dec. 2001 op-ed in the Jerusalem Post called, “Israel’s options.”

Surprised?

In an update on his blog in Sept. 2007, Pipes applauded Minister Haim Ramon’s proposal of cutting off gasoline, water and electricity to Gaza, and lamented the government’s refusal to undertake such measures.

“I have long encouraged the Israeli government to take more assertive measures in response to attacks,” he wrote, using the word “‘assertive”‘ as a euphemism for war crimes. Yet the “‘assertive measures”‘ he calls for � which aren’t that different from the conditions in Gaza today � would only embolden Hamas and any Islamists under similar conditions.

Former Prime Minister � and current vegetable � Ariel Sharon brought about numerous suicide bombings through his assassination policy, as well as his frequent invasions of the territories during the early part of this decade.

The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported in March 2002 that Israeli Defense Forces intelligence reports showed that IDF actions were prompting suicide attacks.

“How can anyone seriously contend that the assassinations contribute to Israeli security since each one leads directly to the killing of Israeli civilians?” Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy wrote in August 2003. “If in the process he [Sharon] elevates Hamas and its political power, it’s a price he’s clearly willing to pay,” wrote Amy Wilentz in the Los Angeles Times in 2002.

Palestinians who are caught between the rock of Israeli sadism and the hard place of theocracy are paying that price. It’s a reality Muslims face as they try to navigate between imperialism, Islamophobia and Islamism.