Posted on 07/24/2006 1:35:10 PM PDT by pissant
Cairo - A vision of a new Middle East emerging from the conflict in Lebanon as outlined by US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice drew ridicule on Monday from mainstream Arab analysts and former Arab diplomats.
Several of them said the United States and Israel had little if any chance of achieving their stated goals of disarming Hezbollah and deploying the Lebanese army or an international buffer force along the Israeli-Lebanese frontier.
"I think it's preposterous. From the beginning this is a plan that cannot be achieved," former Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Maher told Reuters.
Hatred and extremism
In the meantime, by giving the green light to an Israeli offensive which has killed more than 300 civilians and done damage worth billions of dollars, the United States has helped stir up hatred and extremism in a troubled region, they say.
Rice said that on her trip to the Middle East, which began on Monday, she would not try to restore the status quo which existed before a Hezbollah raid into Israel this month.
"What we're seeing here, in a sense, is ... the birth pangs of a new Middle East and, whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one," she added.
US wants 'a tame Middle East'
Maher, who was also ambassador to Washington for many years, said: "In fact what the United States wants to have is a tame Middle East. That's what they call a new Middle East."
Mohamed el-Sayed Said, a political analyst who worked in Washington and takes part in "civil society" meetings with visiting US officials, said he was shocked by the latest twist in US policy towards the region.
Neoconservative school of thought
"What kind of Middle East will be born from this destruction? The only new thing we can get is new determination on the part of Hezbollah or the people of Lebanon to resist Israel and cause it as much pain as possible," he said.
The Arab analysts drew parallels with the US invasion of Iraq and the US refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, which they said amounted to endorsement of Israel's bombing campaign.
Both policies are associated with the neoconservative school of thought in Washington, which holds that Israel is a natural ally of the United States and that pre-emptive force must be used to defeat threats in the early stages.
Syria
Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, an expert on Iraq and Shi'a Islam, said the administration wanted to use the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah "as a wedge to convince Syria to give up rejectionism and detach itself from Iran".
But he added: "Syria is not going to give up its stance toward Israel unless it at the very least gets back the occupied Golan Heights."
It's hard to cause much pain from your radioactive, smoldering crater Habib.
Arab "diplomats" would have preferred the status quo -- a heavily armed Hezbollah posing a constant threat to Israel. The swamp is being drained, and, fortunately, the Arab nations can do nothing about it.
Hi! We're a collection of failed societies that can only flex muscle through the killing of civilians and can only find refuge by hiding amongst them. We're shamed and instead of face that shame we enjoy turning our anger outward. Blame is always better on someone else - and it helps in rallying our charade of nationalistic pride too!
Hezbollah started it, and Israel, with lotsa US help, will finish it.
hhhmmmm...this is interesting, ping..
Yep. And why aren't the arabs in the Palestinian terror-tories helping them get their crap together? The want it to be a constant thorn in Israels side, that's why.
In that case, there will be more war.
And how much military aid do we give Egypt each year...?
Yep, Ahmed, that's about the size of it. The wild version ended up not really working for us.
With the arab countries scorning Bush's serious peace plan, and Iran continuing to sabre rattle, this may be the escalation that is much overdue.
Guess that Ahmed is one of those "can do" people, huh...
Keep in mind that this is Reuters, the news agency that has yet to write a favorable article about America or President Bush.
"US Mideast plan 'preposterous'"
If he's talking about the same plan President Bush spelled out the night of 9/11, he must be a terrorist or harboring terrorists.
Reuters going around cobbling together quotes from the usual suspects to support their leftist anti-American agenda. They have a very narrow perspective on all issues, and their biases and hatreds make them unable to rise above their silly, reckless agenda.
"I think it's preposterous. From the beginning this is a plan that cannot be achieved," former Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Maher told Reuters. "It does not allow us to commit genocide against the Jewish people, and further, it keeps us from enslaving all non-Muslims worldwide. We are open to compromise, but not on these two fundamental issues."
Inertia can be a terrible thing, especially in the most backward thinking place in the world.
And I say good. Next you'll hear arabs saying the hezbollah kidnappings were a jewish/US conspiracy to humiliate the arab states.
More than they deserve.
Doesn't even work for them either. Hence the need for dictators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.