C-Span guest's comment on Arab world's perception of US

[checks-n-balances]

Hope this isn't a dupe, but Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University just finished being a guest a few minutes ago. In responding to a question about Arab perception, he spoke about how we have handled the Arab-Israeli conflict is key. Because of our stronger-than-ever ties with the State of Israel, we are strongly identified with them, almost as being identical to Israel with regard to how the Arab population is being treated in that conflict (i.e., we're seen as occupiers there).

So, because we're so heavily identified with Israel's stance and actions there, and we're also identified as occupiers in Iraq, it's all of a piece in much Arab thought. As long as we're occupying Iraq, that hatred toward us will be present throughout much of the Arab world. (I hope I am representing his comments accurately. If not, someone please clarify them.)

I thought this was interesting. So many Americans have been conditioned to make a connection between 9/11 and Iraq as a rationale for our being there. But they (and this administration, no doubt) would probably disavow any connection between Israeli occupation and our Iraq occupation. They would probably argue that it's two separate things.

I don't think the general American public will ever understand the answer "Why do they hate us?" question until we consider this. So many people are defending the prison scandal with, "What about an apology for 9/11" as though, if we keep confronting the Arab world with that argument, that they will finally understand - or these Americans ignore the rest of the world's perceptions of us. Those Americans just don't get it.

We have a blind spot with regard to injustice done to the Arab people, and we ignore the Arab population's perception of us at our peril.

[LittleApple81]

1. I had a post making people aware of his appearing on C-Span. But

your analysis on the issue of Israel/Palestine as discussed by him is very thorough. Thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1583977

[checks-n-balances]

5. Thanks for the other link ! eom

[LoneStarLiberal]

2. Discussion is Verboten

The repression of discussion on this topic is what turns it into a tautology; discussion is forbidden, therefore most of the public goes on being ignorant of the whole story of the situation, and therefore few people make the connection that most in the Islamic world, not just the Arab world, make between our chumminess with Israel and our lack of such with Arab leaders.

This issue is truly not an Arab issue; it's an Islamic issue. I've traveled to Indonesia and Malaysia four times (two to Indonesia, two to Malaysia) and each time I've rolled the dice when I find people who seem to be willing to talk politics and I talk politics, both national and international. Even the people whom I've met that I would describe as roughly equivalent to middle class liberal Christians here in the States will bring up our glad-handing of Israel within the first two or three topics regarding international politics. Indonesians and Malaysians are not Arabs; they live in relatively open conditions to those of many Arab countries, conditions that include greater economic opportunity that in the cases of some of these people I've talked to are being realized.

I cannot be more clear on this issue: There is no hope that the United States will ever be anything more than brown-nosing, hypocritical ally of Israel. We could use our position to positively coerce Israel into serious peace negotiations, but our current administration is led more by their millenarian fairy tales of the End Times than they are by concern of life, both Israeli and Palestinian. No Democrat, no Republican will ever change our policy toward Israel, which means that we will always be suspect in Islamic eyes.

Israel is here, and it will always be here. The right of the State of Israel to exist has been a reality confirmed over and over again on the battlefield, and it's far past time for Arab regimes to recognize this. At the same time, Israel has to recognize that trying to regain or retain command of any territory won in battle after 1967 is nothing more than a Zionist policy of Lebensraum.

But alas, neither of these key points will be realized because the two sides, Arab and Israeli, are incapable of agreeing and there is no honest broker left in the world to bring them to the table.

You are right; we will continue to ignore the Arab and Islamic world's perception of us at our peril, and gladly schlep along in ignorance all the while.

[Toronto Ron]

3. Reasonable post, but:

A few things to keep in mind:

1) The U.S. is "chummy", for better or worse, with several Arab states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan).

2) When did you have these discussions with your Indonesian & Malaysian friends? There was optimism for peace in the '90s, partly due to President Clinton's leadership. Recall that a peace deal between Israel & the Palestinians was almost sealed, in 2000.

3) It is a debatable question whether Arab/Islamic LEADERS really want Israeli-Palestinian peace. That would eliminate a convenient bogeyman that is useful to deflect the discontent of citizens living under repressive regimes.

[LoneStarLiberal]

4. Good points

Your points are very good ones; I sometimes get caught up in the heat of the moment and forget to round out all my arguments.

1. We are indeed chummy with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, all to the benefit of their respective authoritarian leaders (different degrees of authoritarian, but I digress...). With the exception of Saudi Arabia we are not willing to cut any of them the same kind of slack that we cut the Israelis. There's an argument to be made that we've never cut the Israelis as much slack as we have the Saudi monarchy after September 11th, but we've certainly cut the Israelis more slack more times throughout their relatively young nationhood than we have for any Arab state;

2. The discussion have all taken place since 2000. I was in Indonesia in 1998 but did not discuss big picture politics, only national politics, with any of the Indonesians I befriended. I think you're spot-on about the shift in attitudes with the death knell of the structured peace process we saw during the 1990s. I will be in Malaysia in August and I expect that attitudes will have hardened quite a bit against us since my last visit in 2002;

3. You could not be more correct on this: The authoritarian leaders have co-opted the Israeli-Palestinian issue to make the most effective issue to divert criticism of their failing leadership. The quantity of baseless, anti-Semetic press that comes out of the Arab world when there is precious little free press is not an accident; the rampant anti-Semetism is part and parcel of the authoritarian leaders' co-option of the issue to their advantage.

[Toronto Ron]

7. re: cutting Israel slack

The bushlers have certainly cut Israel a lot of slack, I can't argue that. This is due to their black & white vision of the world (i.e. Arabs = 100% bad. Unfortunately, I see the flipside - Israel = 100% bad - all too often here at DU).

But this has not always been the case. I think Clinton and Carter were even-handed, and worked strongly for peace (it takes a Democrat of course). Bush the father was quite tough on the Israelis; Reagan was friendlier. Nixon/Kissinger were not as loving as many believe; e.g. they waited until the latest moment of desparation before supplying Israel with the arms they needed to survive the 1973 war (it has been rumored that Israel threatened to go nuclear otherwise). And in the 50s and 60s, relations were not nearly as friendly; in those days Israel got much of its arms from France and England.

[LoneStarLiberal]

8. True, And Further More...

Yep, all true.

Regarding the current Bush administration and Israel, we probably haven't seen a President that is more unconditionally enabling of Israeli misbehavior since LBJ. That's what is so interesting regarding this issue: The bipartisan nature of it all.

When you look at so many of the necon cogs in our government's policymaking apparatus, it's no shocker that we are glad-handing Sharon's regime. All these folks come out of a political and intellectual tradition that places the security of Israel above the security of their own country.

[Toronto Ron]

9. re the neocons:

I think too much is made of the influence of the neocons/PNACers (in particular the Jewish ones, of course) on this administration. It's the Texas oilmen that are in control of everything. It just turns out that the foreign policy spit out by the neocons is in line with the oilmen's objectives, at least in the short term. That what dismays me about the obsession with the PNACers here at DU; we lose focus of the real powers-that-be: the big oilmen (and related corporate associates).

[checks-n-balances]

6. You're right, too - thanks for the clarification

That's correct - it's more of an Islamic issue.

Not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslim (I knew that!).