Inside the Arab Mind Posted by David Adesnik

Those of us with overpriced, overhyped academic credentials like to think of policy analyis as a firmly rational discipline in which logic and evidence serve as the basis for sound judgments.  However, IMHO, there is so much uncertainty in world politics that even the best-informed analysis must depend on an extraordinary degree of speculation.

My case in point is the standard American discussion about Arab popular opinion, to which some analysts condescendingly refer as "the Arab street".  In his inaugural post as a guest blogger here on DA, Michael Kraig called into question

The status quo policy conception that the anger in the Middle East is due to internal, domestic repression/ oppression/injustice under autocratic governments, and that the anger toward Israel, the West, the US, and the globalizing world order is a byproduct of this, or an escape valve for this.

According to Michael, this argument is

Wrong -- or at least, half-wrong.  There is of course an "escape valve" factor at work here...But would this anger and hate disappear if the Middle East were democratized at the domestic level?  The answer is, simply, no.  Because the feelings about lack of justice, or lack of democracy, at the INTERNATIONAL level are just as acute and just as real for many citizens and officials alike throughout the Middle East, and only the US supporting the rule of law at the international level will appease this anger and truly bring about a sea-change in relations and perceptions.

To Michael's great credit, his observations are based on extensive discussions he had during two months of business travel throughout the Middle East.  The opinions his counterparts expressed are ones that should be taken seriously.

Nonetheless, as any student of public opinion knows, it is extraordinarily hard to gauge the instensity of an interview subject's preferences even when one is fairly certain about what those preferences are.  In other words, I don't doubt for a second that the overwhelming majority of Arabs sincerely resent Israeli behavior toward the Palestinians or perhaps even the existence of Israel itself, not to mention being critical of the United States for defending Israeli interests. 

But what I really want to know is how intense these feelings are.  For example, one great challenge for the United States is to confront the surprising degree of sympathy for Al Qaeda and its methods in the Arab world.  To what degree will this sympathy diminish in those Arab nations such as Lebanon where the transition to democracy has begun? 

As Michael acknowledges, some of the anger directed at the United States and Israel is the byproduct of domestic repression and should therefore diminish as a result of domestic liberalization. Thus, I am inclined to say that the difference between Michael's position and my own is one of degree and not of kind.  The question then is how one should go about determining to what degree Arab anger is the product of actual greivances rather than an indirect response to domestic oppression.

In 2003, Foreign Affairs published an excellent essay on this subject by Michael Scott Doran, a professor of Near Eastern Studies.  Doran's analysis focuses on Arab attitudes toward the Palestinian question, rather than Arab resentment of the United States.  Doran argues that most expressions of concern about the Palestinians in the Arab world are rhetorical gambits designed to entrap one's domestic opponents rather than an expression of an actual desire to do something for the Palestinians.

One fascinating illustration of Doran's point is his description of a protest in the impoverished region of Al Jawf in northeastern Saudi Arabia.  Doran writes that:

Al Jawf has earned the distinction of being the only place in the Saudi kingdom repeatedly and consistently to defy laws criminalizing popular demonstrations. Matters reached a head last April 5 [of 2002 -ed.] in the town of Sakaka, where about 4,000 angry young men congregated in town squares, burned Israeli and American flags, and called on Arab states to take action on behalf of the Palestinians. To restore order Saudi authorities had to dispatch three transport planes carrying 500 riot police, and for weeks afterward these forces continued to patrol the area.

As extensive reporting in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds al-Arabi has made clear, the demonstrations "were organized in solidarity with the Palestinians and in protest over the neglect which the [Al Jawf] region is suffering at the hands of the government."  Al Jawf is one of the most backward places in Saudi Arabia. Many towns in the region, including Sakaka, lack electricity and the basic amenities of modern life. Located far from ports and oil revenues, lacking access to the corridors of power, the residents of Al Jawf feel deprived.

In Saudi Arabia, the punishment for dissidents is usually imprisonment or worse.  Yet by framing their protest as an action on behalf of the Palestinians, the residents of Al Jawf made it impossible for the monarchy to punish them as traitors.  After all, at least officially, the House of Saud shares the protesters sympathy for the Palestinians.

As Doran points out, even Osama bin Laden's concern for the Palestinians arose as a byproduct of his hatred for the House of Saud and other pro-American dictatorships.  Only after 9/11 did bin Laden start to describe as Israeli behavior as a leading justification for his terrorism.  Personally, I think it is safe to infer that bin Laden had no love lost for Israel before 9/11.  Yet his behavior speaks volumes about the intensity of his preferences; he may have been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but devoted himself to the struggle against his own government and its American patron.

Another important point that Doran makes is that even if one were to assume that Arab anger is primarily a response to Israeli transgressions rather than domestic oppression, it may simply not be possible for either the United States or Israel to allay such anger since:

Americans and Arabs nurture such different conceptions of what constitutes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it is hard to imagine Washington ever adopting a policy toward it that would be truly popular in the Arab world. The most "pro-Palestinian" policy realistically conceivable would look something like the Clinton plan presented in late 2000, but even this would entail major Palestinian compromises (such as the renunciation of the right of pre-1967 refugees to return to their homes inside Israel proper).

Of course, this point in no way constitutes evidence for the assertion that Arab anger is more of a response to domestic oppression than it is to foreign encroachments.  Nonetheless, it does throw the ball back into Michael's court by demanding to know how exactly progressives might attenuate Arab resentment of the United States and Israel.  Michael?

Comments

[Chris Stone]

Mike Doran confuses corrupt Arab regimes' exploitation of the Palestinian issue and the very sincere sympathy that the Arab on the street has for the plight of the Palestinains. I happen to know that Mike Doran does not speak Arabic (he reads it well though) and does not visit the Arab World regularly: it is possible that he has not been there in more than 10 years and when he was there he was limited to speaking to people in English.

And whether or not Arabs do anything about the situation is no guage. I, personally am against the war in Iraq, but is there anything I can do to change US government policy? It is possible that outside observers would say that Americans aren't really against the war in Iraq because they are not doing anything about it.

I know from long experience in the region that the US governemnt's seemingly blind support for Israel and many Arab goverment's complicity in that support is the single biggest cause of rage on the mythical "Arab Street." So in a sense Doran is right, as every demonstration in support of the Palestinians is a demonstration about local issues as well, i.e. the Arab regimes' failure to put any diplomatic weight behind their empty-for-domestic-consumption-pro-Palestinian rhetoric.

Mike Doran is correct that there is no consensus in the Arab World on what would constitute a fair solution. The Arab Street, however, much more savvy about world affiars/events than the US street, knows blatant hypocrisy when it sees it.

Mike Doran's take on the Arab street provides comfort to lawmakers in Washington, which helps to explain why Doran was recently offered a high-level position at the NSC responsible for the Israel-Palestine desk. The subtext of Doran's article is that there is no point in changing our policy toward Israel becuase it is not going to help our image in the Arab World. This, in my mind, is dangerous thinking and certainly not the way to win "hearts and minds."

[jk]

Chris-

The Arab Street know hypocricy when they see it? Can they see hypocrisy in their near total silence regarding genocide in the Sudan?

[John Penta]

Chris:

Any mass amount of people generally has the IQ of a stick.

Inferring that the Arab street is more savvy than the US street is more than likely wrong.

Both are made of humans, and humans, when in groups, are surprisingly stupid.

[ATM]

And why should Arabs care about the Palestinians? Because they are a racists and religious supremacists who only are concerned about people most like them? That would likely explain the years of outrage about the Palestinians and the almost silence on the infinitely worse treatment by Arab and other Muslim majority governments of racial and religious minorities and even majority Arab groups. I'm afraid it is the "Arab street" that is the most hypocritcal, and much as the Germans had to be shown the true depravity of the Nazi Germany for them to get over themselves, someone needs to give the Arabs a mirror that will show them the true depths of their own cultural depravity.

[Chris]

jk

Total silence? And you have an ear to the Arab street? I can tell you that individual Arabs are appalled by what is happening in the Sudan, but why do you expect them to do more about it than you yourself have done? Again, as I said above but with a different disaster: an outside observe would say of the US and Americans that it/they doesn't/don't care about Darfour because if anyone can do anything about the situation the US can.

And let's suppose for a second that you are right: the average Arab doesn't care about the "non-Arabs" in Darfour. I'm sure you were taught in Friday, Saturday or Sunday school that two wrongs do not make a right or whatever the cliche is. For years, to get back to the original topic, supporters of Israel have justified Israel's blatant disregard for human rights and international law by saying "Well, the Arabs don't do anything to help the Palestinians." Even if this were true (and it is certainly true of many of the corrupt US supported regimes in the Arab World) does this absolve Israel of its responsibility to do the right thing by the Palestinians?

John:

You are absolutely right: a mob is a mob. I should have been clearer. I meant to say that your average "Muhammad" on the Arab street is much better informed than your average "Joe" on the US street.

[Carl Nyberg]

The United States should arm-twist Israel to make a just peace.

It is the moral thing to do. It is the strategic thing to do, even if it entails risks to the politicians that do it.

Will making Israel "an offer it can't refuse" fix the conflict with the ideological movement represented by al Qaeda? Not by itself.

But it is an essential step. Foot-dragging by Dems out of political cowardice disgraceful.

[ATM]

I can tell you that individual Arabs are appalled by what is happening in the Sudan, but why do you expect them to do more about it than you yourself have done? Again, as I said above but with a different disaster: an outside observe would say of the US and Americans that it/they doesn't/don't care about Darfour because if anyone can do anything about the situation the US can.

And if the US did something about it they would say the US is attacking Arabs and going after Sudan's oil. And while I am certain that there are individual Arabs concerned about the plight of black Sudanese Muslims, and even some concerned about the plight of non Muslims in Sudan, I don't see any evidence that many Arabs are concerned about it.

For years, to get back to the original topic, supporters of Israel have justified Israel's blatant disregard for human rights and international law by saying "Well, the Arabs don't do anything to help the Palestinians."

No, we have justified it by saying that Arabs as a whole won't make peace, and that Arab governments and Arab society is much worse. I would rather be an Israeli Arab than a minority in one those Arab countries. I say the outrage expressed by Arabs and amount of time dedicated to that expression should be proportional to the magnitude of the depredations. Given Arab society and governments is considerably worse and considerably larger, they should spend most of their time expressing significantly more outrage at themselves and other Arab countries.

Truly the only thing I object to regarding Israel is their building of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. They should raze most of them and focus on an exchange of land along the future borders of Israel that will create the most militarily defensible boundary. But let's not forget the mass expulsion and pogroms of Jews and expropriation of their property perpertrated by Arab governments. I would suggest giving the Palestinians those expropriated properties as part of any settlement, because clearly any sort of just settlement would have to deal with the issue of expropriated Jewish propery, but no Israeli Jew would want to make any of those countries home again.

I meant to say that your average "Muhammad" on the Arab street is much better informed than your average "Joe" on the US street.

Whatever. Your average member of the Arab street has his mind battered by the relentless repetition of various conspiracy theories by Arab media, Islamic clerics, and Arab governments. One can not possibily be well informed in that environment.

[Rudolf Gross]

I hope you don't mind if I comment about this mostly American issue as an outsider (interested German), but maybe a different perspective is meritous here after all.

To me it seems that the question whether the outrage and resentment on the famous Arab street is just the forefront of a different question: "Is it our fault that they think like this or is this someone else's?" Of course what ATM conveniently labels to be "relentless repetitions of various conspiracy theories" enhances the trend, but did it cause it? Is this all to it? Hostile propaganda?

Look around in the world. American standing worldwide has drastically plummeted to all-time lows, and not only in circles traditionally weary or maybe even hostile. Take me, for example, who has always been a staunch pro-American in political discussions. What has happened prior and after the Iraq war has made me very weary and distrustful of America. The way how venomous patriotism was successfully used to silence reason in the phase the Iraq war was purposefully engineered by interested circles. The way the triumphalists have openly derided the principles of international law and later even human right issues during the torture scandal. The unilateral support of Israel in the palestinian issue. And and and.

My point: The drop in respect for America in _my_ mind wasn't caused by evil arabic propagandists. It was caused by the policies of the American administration. It was caused by the disturbing failure of the American media to counterbalance the war blitz. It was caused by the slight majority of Americans who decided to sanction things at the next elections. And all these issues didn't touch me directly - but for Arabs, this is different. And if I, as a pro-western traditional friend of America was forced to seriously reevaluate my opinions, gets a nasty shiver, then what would all this mean for an educated Arab?

To put my rant in perspective: If you're seriously trying to convince yourself that the anti-americanism in Arab streets isn't primarily caused by your own actions, then I believe that you're actively deluding yourself.

[ATM]

Given the venemous anti-Americanism of mainstream German media that showed up rather quickly after 9/11, and the fact that a signficant fraction of Germans believed all sorts of conspiracy theories regarding the US government and 9/11 in early 2002, I don't think there is evidence to believe that Germans can evaluate the US fairly. Germans' apparent preference for totalitarian China and somewhat authoritarian Russia combined with the willingness of Germany and Europe in general to pander to Arab sentiment for economic reasons (and to minimize their chances of getting targeted) has made me seriously skeptical about German common sense and has made me realize that they did not learn the fundamental lesson of WWII: totalitarian governments that actively and visciously suppress their citizens are the ones that can't be trusted in the long run.

As for triumphalists having "openly derided the principles of international law" it partly because of European actions during past decade that we have come to realize that international law isn't worth much. France and Russia (and Germany too) did much to undermine the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War which required Iraq amongst other things, to verifiably disarm completely and improve the treatment of its citizens. Essentially France, Russia, and China used their Security Council votes as economic bargaining chips for gaining contracts and future oil concessions from Iraq. Their companies profiteered from the UN Oil for Food Program and offered bribes and kickbacks to Saddam to win contracts, allowing Saddam to gain hard currency and non-essential goods that he needed to maintain his grip on power. The UN Oil for Food scandal along with the multitude of other scandals plaguing the UN currently are strong evidence that international law and international institutions have not been working.

To put my rant in perspective: If you're seriously trying to convince yourself that the anti-americanism in Arab streets isn't primarily caused by your own actions, then I believe that you're actively deluding yourself.

Do you think our actions happen in a vacuum? It works both ways you know, our actions are a response to the actions of others. So maybe the Arabs should try to understand us. The simple fact of the matter is that we in the US hear far more of their views than Arabs hear of our views. And maybe if Arabs heeded our viewpoint, they would make their own countries a better place to live while eliminating the reasons for our own actions.

[dissemblance]

What does the moral credibility of Germany and the rest of Europe, have to do with Arab perception of US actions? Of course the actions of the US have contributed to Arab anti-Americanism. Whether those actions have been fairly analyzed by Arabs, or whether they are worse than any other country's actions is entirely beside the point. The issue at hand is a matter of perception; and the perception of the US is quite a bit more negative now than 4 years ago.
The military and diplomatic actions of the US are not roundly condemned throughout the world and there are compelling reasons for and against much of what has transpired in Iraq. However, the public stance of the Bush administration is another matter. By not admitting to any mistakes, nor even doubts about their course, the administration is causing most of its own perception problems.
The disparity between news reports from Iraq and the Bush administrations public announcements is embarassing. If the news media is to blame for only reporting the bad, then the administration should feel obliged to point to concrete good news. If the situation is really as bad as the anti-war movement claims, then the administration should stop trying to paint a rosy picture, and start giving reasonable arguments supporting its current policies-- continuing the mission because it is a noble cause is not a reasonable argument because it admits no critical analysis.

[Dan Simon]

And whether or not Arabs do anything about the situation is no guage. I, personally am against the war in Iraq, but is there anything I can do to change US government policy? It is possible that outside observers would say that Americans aren't really against the war in Iraq because they are not doing anything about it.

This is actually a better analogy than you realize. The vast majority of those in America who have strong opinions about the war in Iraq--either way--are motivated primarily by partisanship, rather than thoughtful analysis or even ideology. The same goes for opinions about Israel, as I've pointed out before--or to just about any other foreign policy issue. If you don't believe me, go ahead and check the polling figures.

And when you think about it, that makes sense. Most foreign policy issues are of even less direct concern to most Americans than most domestic issues--about which Americans tend to line up along partisan lines, sometimes even against their own material self-interest. Partisan affiliation--usually a proxy for various notions of social, economic and cultural identity--is a powerful thing.

I see no reason to believe that opinions about the US or Israel in the Arab world (or Europe, for that matter--or even in the US itself) are formed any differently. Hostility to America and Israel can be a symbol of many different domestic loyalties, beyond mere opposition to the US-supported authoritarians currently in power: aristocratic/faux-aristocratic/cultural-elitist disdain for the low capitalism of the merchant class; populist-ethnic-chauvinist/religious-traditionalist hatred of foreigners; middle-class-secular-nationalist rebelliousness against domination by foreign powers.

In most countries, on the other hand, sympathy towards the US or Israel has little symbolic value as a binder of constituencies. The conspicuous exceptions are Iraq, where the US is naturally associated with at least one side in the domestic conflict; Iran, where the radical Shiite regime has made anti-Americanism a large part of its identity; and of course, Israel itself.

Under these circumstances, it's hard to see how US disengagement from the region and/or abandonment of Israel will attract partisans to its cause. On the other hand, the more the US involves itself deeply in the domestic affairs of Middle Eastern countries, actively taking sides and assisting allies, the more "pro-Americanism" will attract partisans of whatever side the US supports. That's bound to be better than the current state of affairs in many Arab countries, where anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are virtually the only matters of genuine across-the-board societal consensus.

[Rudolf Gross]

ATM, you're completely missing my point. The question is whose actions are responsible for the Arab hatred for America in the streets, and I can only say that in my humble opinion it's primarily both the American policies AND the way the Bush administration have been presenting them. Why? Because they have been _globally_ received in a very negative way (and definitely correctly so), not only in the Arab world. Except for 1-2 countries in the former eastern bloc, worldwide opinions were dramatically against the proposed Iraq war - even and especially in many countries which at least initially were part of the "Coalition of the Willing".

If you honestly prefer to believe that Germans (like me) are unable to fairly assess US policies, then what about Dutch? What about Australians? What about Spaniards and Brits? Why did all of them come to the same conclusions, which can clearly be measured?

It is this "We know that we're right (no matter that real life continually proves us wrong)" doubtless true believer way of dealing with the Iraq and terror realities which is turning former outspoken admiration and friendship into caution in the western world, and neutrality into open hostility in the middle east. The question how much of this is warranted is too long to discuss in a feedback post like this, but if you want my opinion: Yeah, it's mostly warranted.

But please opt to believe by all means that it's all the others' faults, and that they better have to change their way of thinking to resolve this underlying conflict. It's undoubtedly much more convenient.

[Jay.Mac]

"It's America's fault that it's hated by the Arab street" seems to be the general concensus here. Because it supports Israel is one major reason apparently. Well, if America decided that it wanted the support of the Arab street (and I'll put aside the question of why it should- does Germany base it's policies on how best to please Americans? Does France base it's policies on what the British want?) and wanted to treat Israel in a manner which would best please the Arabs, it would have to do much more than get Israelis out of the West Bank or Jerusalem- it would have to eradicate Israel altogether. *That* is what the Arab street wants.

One major factor which everyone here seems to be completely ignoring is Islam. For Arab Muslims, Israel- all of Israel- is occupied territory and they are thus justified in waging jihad against it. There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel is gone, so far as the Muslim Street is concerned.

Am I being an Islamophobe? Well, no. Look at what the Islamists are actually saying themselves. They hate Israel and they hate America. Will the US destroying Israel for them bring an end to that anger? No, it will not. They will demand that the US leaves the Middle East altogether. Will that stop it? No, because there is also the question of the caliphate. Listen to what the Muslim "extremists" are saying, in the Middle East, in Europe, in Russia, in the UK and the US- the aim is to establish Islamic rule wherever they are. That's why clerics have talked about overthrowing the US government and flying the flag of Islam from the White House. And take note- they aren't just talking about Bush's government. It's the *US* government.

Despite what you might think of them, go and read Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch and Little Green Footballs for a week and see if it gives you a slightly different perspective. LGF gets a lot of flack form the Left for being "fascist, islamophobia". Funny then that all he does is report on stories- there's precious little commenting by Charles.

There's a lot of condemnation here for the actions of Israel but none at all for the actions of the Palestinian terorists who for years have been brutally murdering Israeli civilians. What about *their* disregard for human rights and international law? Is it right that we reward their terrorism by supporting their quest for a state? Or would it be more prudent to demand an end to the violence before then? Does Israel have any other responsibility than to protect their own citizens? Let's have a list of those "human rights violations" shall we- give us a list to discuss. And we will- in light of the horrendous security situation in Israel who is faced by a foe that thinks nothing of brutally and callously murdering a pregnant woman and her young children.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/72

How do you propose Israel deals with that?

Even now Israel is withdrawing from the Gaze strip- what is the Palestinian response? Abbas praises the martyrs for their sacrifice and the terrorists vow to fight on, using Gaza to reach deeper into Israeli territory. Let's suppose Israel pulls out of the West Bank and Jerusalem- will that appease the Palestinians, or will they simply continue to attack their hated enemy and attempt to destroy Israel altogether. Afterall, that is the stated aim of Hezbollah.

One more thing I'd like to say is this- since when did it become incumbent on the United States to formulate policies which kowtowed to world opinion? Why should America (or any country) put the needs or wants of foreign citizens before their own? You can complain about Bush for as long as you want but America was the "Great Satan" long before he came to office. America is hated not because of Bush or Iraq but because it is America- a free, tolerant society with *gasp* women's rights and *the horror* homosexuals.

As David said at the start of the post- foreign policy is normally considered rational and logical. It doesn't take into account the Islamic filter which the Arab street sees through.

[Polk011]

I don't know how many people read this article when it came out in Foreign Policy magazine back in January, but Josef Joffe does a good job analyzing what exactly Israel contributes to anti-American sentiment in this article.

To more directly address Michael's point that anti-Americanism is fueled by our disregard for international laws and norms (he cites a discussion with a man in China), it seems a stretch to say that Arab hatred of America would somehow be quelled if we were, say, on board the landmine treaty or signed Kyoto. I tend to think the anger in question--if you want to get into the mucky business of assigning blame externally--would be on account of America not respecting a given country's national laws, rather than international law.

[Dan Simon]

I can only say that in my humble opinion it's primarily both the American policies AND the way the Bush administration have been presenting them. Why? Because they have been _globally_ received in a very negative way (and definitely correctly so), not only in the Arab world.

Hmm...I seem to recall this other German fellow who used to say that because a particular nationality was universally despised, they must be to blame....

Okay, that was a cheap shot. But hopefully it clarifies the fallacy in your reasoning.

In Germany, America is hated for her militarism. In France, for her amoral materialism. In Britain, for her colonialism. Spot the pattern?

A well-known American political aphorism is, "all politics is local". Europeans, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans--they all have their reasons for hating America. But the reasons have far more to do with themselves and their home countries than with what one faraway country is doing in another faraway country.

[Noah]

"Only after 9/11 did bin Laden start to describe as Israeli behavior as a leading justification for his terrorism"

I'm sorry, but this statement is blatantly false. Go read bin Laden's manifestos, interviews, statements, going back to the mid-90s and you'll see his many, many references to the "Zionist occupation" of Palestine and Jerusalem as a main causation of his hatred toward the US. It was always; US presence in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and US propping up corrupt Arab autocrats, such as Mubarak, House of Saud, and Abdullah of Jordan.

Also read the 911 report; twice ban Laden tried to move up the date of the attack to coincide with certain Israeli actions; one, Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000, the other to coincide with Sharon's visit to the WH, in the Spring, 2001. In addition, in the 911 report, see KSM's statement that his anger/hatred toward the US stemmed from US support for Israel, not hatred for US culture, values, etc.

I think it was Tom Friedman who started the "bin Laden didn't point to Palestine as a main justification for his war against the US till after 911", meme. It's one of those things many people have come to believe is true - even though it's not- because it's been picked up and repeated so many times in the media and by certain columnists like Friedman.

[David Fleck]

I think this is possibly the most important point (I'm reiterating it here because I don't think it gets sufficient attention, here or elsewhere):

...even if one were to assume that Arab anger is primarily a response to Israeli transgressions rather than domestic oppression, it may simply not be possible for either the United States or Israel to allay such anger since:

Americans and Arabs nurture such different conceptions of what constitutes a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it is hard to imagine Washington ever adopting a policy toward it that would be truly popular in the Arab world. The most "pro-Palestinian" policy realistically conceivable would look something like the Clinton plan presented in late 2000, but even this would entail major Palestinian compromises (such as the renunciation of the right of pre-1967 refugees to return to their homes inside Israel proper).

...and that policy certainly didn't do much to appease the "Arab street" or Arab extremists, did it?

[Lane Brody]

The essential little missing truth is that the United States, from time to time, remembers that appeasement and pacifism (hello Germany) is not always the proper response to every situation. Seems a few other nations also recall this truth from time to time also.

The "arab street" hating the US for Israel and Iraq is a big fat joke. The Arabs had Israel outnumbered about 250 to 1 during the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 and are still embarrassed little Israel kicked their ass every time. The US didn't help Israel out much untill after 1967- when France stopped helping (anyone recall the IAF's French Mirage fighters?). The Arab world has had 57 years to make peace with Israel and Israel would survive without US help so excuse me for not being moved.

Regarding Iraq it does seem true that most of the sunni arab world is pissed off that the Iraqi sunni minority is no longer going to rule Iraq but frankly that's just too damn bad. Welcome to democracy, one person one vote- deal with it.

Maybe everyone either forgot or chose to forget that much of the Arab world celebrated after 9/11- you know before Iraq and Afganistan. Guess being angry for helping Israel is enough to justify this view? See above. If anger over Israel is enough to justify every hatred and act of terror then I'd suggest therapy. The Arab street had 57 years to get rid of Israel and getting mad at Uncle Sam is just silly.

According to both Pres Clinton and Amb Ross, among others, the Palestinians were in no way prepared to seriously even contemplate, much less negotiate peace with Israel. But oh year blame the US anyway.

The ENTIRE notion that US policy towards Israel justifies mass murder is what is wrong with the world and more to the point this discussion. Did nobody listen to Tony Blair recently when he reminded us all that there is never any justification of any kind for terrorism?

If the Arab street is mad at the US for helping Israel and propping up non-democratic arab goverments it needs to grow up. You want to destroy Israel go do it or stop whining. You want a new goverment, put your ass on the line and get one- Lebanon anyone? The "street" might also consider the irony in blaming the US for both the external (Israel) and internal goverment. That sure meant nothing during the Iranian revolution 26 years ago. Oh course those were Persians not Arabs.

Finally, the internal Muslim conflict over Islamic fundamentalism is nothing new- it's been going on for decades. Take a look at the conflict in Saudi Arabia in the 1930's frex. Sorry but the US stands for modernity- you know rule of law, equal rights for women, etc. Extreme fundamentalism is about SLAVERY for half the population. German style pacifism in the face of this reality is obscene- thankfully not all of Europe holds these views.

Lane Brody

[Jay.Mac]

Everything he said.

Nice post Lane.

[Mentar]

Wow. I definitely expected more mature responses than most of the last ones from this board.

What I've been pointing out and most of the fine folks here are still completely ignoring is the fact that the disposition towards America has plummeted dramatically and _worldwide_ since the Iraq war. I thought that this hint was warranted because there was a serious discussion whether or not this was the sole or at least primary result of hateful arab media indoctrination. Obviously not - otherwise the decline would have been restricted to areas with arab media exposure. But it isn't.

Also, instead of suddenly accusing the entire rest of the world to be latently anti-american, why did this anti-americanism break out only recently? The logical and simple answer is that there is a direct correlation to the Bush administration policies, but pointing this out creates a disgraceful flurry of ad-hominems and other primitive slurs. Even on THIS board. Wow.

Well, fine. Please go ahead. Somehow the whole situation reminds me of someone who has caught a nasty festering splinter under his skin and proves unable to deal with it - because he has the biggest hammer in the world and suddenly every irritating problem starts to look like a nail.

[Mike]

Mentar,

The reason no one seems to be addressing things in a manner you deem appropriate. Is due to the fact you've apparently framed the situation in question so that the "facts" fit your worldview. Making it difficult to honestly and accurately address your questions.

There is as much anti Americanism now as there was prior to Bush becoming President. What’s the difference? Where it wasn’t so fashionable to bash the states publicly before, it is now. And it’s done under the guise of criticizing the war, Bush, Kyoto etc. But if you listen to the critique and notice its visceral nature. You clue in quickly that the majority of the time its not who or what they are complaining about that is the real issue. It's what they represent in to these people. Bush could have the same politics and enact the same policies but talk with a New England accent and have a stiff elitist demeanor and the reaction from Europe and America's Europhile left to him and thus his policies would be totally different then to now. It's not about Bush the man, It's Bush the Archetype that these people react to.

Bottom line is that the anti American, and their apologists in America, insist the sentiment is due to specific actions of what ever administration is in office. And lots of us really want to believe this. Unfortunately many of us who travel about the world understand what the underlying motive for anti Americanism is. Americans.
If you listen to the way the various offending American policies or politicians are characterized. You notice that the characterizations bare a striking resemblance to the common critique of American culture and citizenry. What’s most interesting is that the overwhelming number of people leveling such criticisms have never been to America. Meaning their critique is subjective...IE more indicative of their own issues.

Sure we as a country do our share of idiot moves. And many deserving criticism. But the actions of this government are merely providing a cover for most anti Americans to attack that which they find most offensive. Americans.

The sooner Americans face this fact the sooner we'll be able to craft a foreign policy that is effective.

M

[Mike]

Something I meant to mention in that earlier post. More so in Europe and Canada than elsewhere - I notice that there tends to be a common theme underlying much of their criticism of the US. It's - Americans need to be more like us. Or some other framing of that same sentiment.

Ironic coming from people bitching about the US supposedly imposing its will on the world.

If Arabs are so quick to see hypocrisy. Maybe they could share the secrets to such a talent with Europe and its hangers on.

M

[Lane Brody]

One contributing factor to anti-Americanism is the widespread acceptance of "occupation". Gaza used to be part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. Legally the notion of occupation is spurious. What the European media bought into was the notion of Israel as occupier oppressor vs the Palestinians as victims. While there are elements of truth in these terms they remove all blame from the Pal./Arab/Muslim world and put it all on Israel.

Over time this Israel as bad/wrong/evil justified terror against Israeli's (jews). In terms of percent of population Israel has had many 9/11's.

The point is that years of western and arab press have totally accepted the notion of resisting occupation justifies terrorism. Thus the simple act of hanging the label of "occupier" on US forces in Iraq brings in every accepted notion vis a vis Israel as occupier.

Never mind the Iraqi goverment has not asked us to leave and needs our help nor the fact that the insurgency is against that goverment and would itself seek to re-occupy the land of Iraq to bring back the sunni bath party police state.

The entire moral arguement around "occupation" and terrorism is obscene; however, what is far worse is much of the western press's total acceptance. Beyond this is the shame many people feel towards the west's rejection of the notion of duty. After overthrowing or liberating Iraq, depending on one's pov, the US had and has a clear and present duty to help these people to at least be prepared to help themselves. To leave before then would be more than dishonorable it would be immoral. Be nice if that arguement got mentioned from time to time.

Lane

[J Thomas]

I would like to suggest that everyone who participated in this discussion archive the whole thing, with a note in your scheduler to look at it again in 5 years, and once more in 10 years.

It's the sort of thing that might give a lot of insight after it ripens awhile.

[J Thomas]

So, this guy who's listened to a lot of arabs says that we don't understand how they think, and he tells us how he thinks they think since he listened to them. He says it's good to listen to people and get a sense of what they're saying, and it seems like we put words into their mouths to fit our preconceptions.

And what do we do? We tell him he doesn't understand how arabs think. And we tell him that we're right and the arabs and germans and the rest of the world are wrong. And the reason the rest of the world is upset at us is because they don't understand us and they don't listen to us. Instead they put words into our mouths to fit their preconceptions. They've always done this, the rest of the world has always despised us but they didn't use to say it to our faces as much as they do now, that's the only difference. But really we're right and they're wrong.

There's no point trying to understand what arabs want because they want so much that we'd be completely unwilling to give them. We'd have to give them all of israel and we'd have to all convert to islam and do everything they told us to, and they'd hate us anyway. So there's no point doing anything they want, they'll hate us no matter what we do, the only way to negotiate with them is by beating them completely and utterly and maybe someday after they unconditionally surrender, maybe THEN we can talk.

Do I have it right or did I misunderstand?

[pst314]

Arab Muslims were murdering Jews (including women and infants) a century ago. The Jews were too "uppity" you see, and didn't "know their place." No honest discussion of the Arab-Israeli dispute can take place without an acknowledgement of this. And I fear that Arabs are, by and large, still too much in love with their fascist fantasies to face up to this.

[J Thomas]

pst314, you can say the sxact same thing about russians, poles, and especially germans. What is your point?

It sounds like your point is that you understand arabs better than Michael Kraig or anybody, and you understand that there's no possible way to negotiate with them. Do I have that right?

[Discount Marc Jacobs Handbag]

There's no point trying to understand what arabs want because they want so much that we'd be completely unwilling to give them. We'd have to give them all of israel and we'd have to all convert to islam and do everything they told us to, and they'd hate us anyway. So there's no point doing anything they want, they'll hate us no matter what we do, the only way to negotiate with them is by beating them completely and utterly and maybe someday after they unconditionally surrender, maybe THEN we can talk.

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[michael jordan shoes]

Cheap Jordan shoes and Gucci shoes are on sale

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[chat]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...

[http://www.orjinkrem.net/]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!altın çilek

[impianto audio]

Gaza used to be part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan. Legally the notion of occupation is spurious.

[car insurance]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[Garlic Yeast Infection]

Not a lot of people know how to balance knowledge of a subject and content.