Posted on 01/16/2006 1:26:24 PM PST by Hal1950
Karen Hughes, President Bush’s newest undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and the caretaker of America’s image abroad, has her work cut out for her.
A Zogby survey of 3,900 Arabs in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates has uncovered massive distrust of U.S. motives in the Middle East.
Unkindest cut of all, Arabs would prefer that President Chirac and France lead the world rather than us, and, rather than have us as the world’s lone superpower, they would prefer the Chinese.
While Arabs are not as rabidly anti-American as in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, still, by 77 percent to 6 percent, they believe the Iraqi people are worse off today, and by four-to-one, Arabs say the U.S. invasion has increased, not decreased, terrorism.
Designed by Arab scholar Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution, the survey reveals pervasive cynicism about the stated goals of George W. Bush. When asked, “When you consider American objectives in the Middle East, what factors do you think are important to the United States?” the Arab answers came as follows:
Fully 76 percent said the Americans are there for the oil, 68 percent said to protect Israel, 63 percent to dominate the region, and 59 percent to weaken the Muslim world. Only 6 percent said we were there to protect human rights and another 6 percent said to promote democracy. Asked directly if they believe President Bush when he says democracy is our goal, two of every three Arabs, 78 percent in Egypt, said that, no, they do not believe Bush.
Asked to name the two nations that present the greatest threat to regional peace, 70 percent named Israel, 63 percent the United States, and 11 percent Britain. Only 6 percent named our bête noire Iran.
Asked to name the foreign leader they disliked most, Sharon swept top honors with 45 percent. Bush took the silver with 30 percent. No one else was close. Tony Blair came in a weak third. Only 3 percent of the Arabs detest him most.
While only 6 percent agreed with al-Qaeda’s aim to establish an Islamic state and only 7 percent approve of its methods, 20 percent admire the way al-Qaeda “stood up for Muslim causes” and 36 percent admire how it “confronts the U.S.”
Favorite news source? Sixty-five percent named Al-Jazeera either as their favorite or second favorite. What Fox News is to red-state America, Al-Jazeera is to the Arab street.
America’s standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behavior in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?
After all, before liberating Kuwait, Secretary of State Baker said the coming war was about “o-i-l.” And while we sent half a million troops to rescue that nation of 1.5 million, we sent none to Rwanda, where perhaps that many people were massacred.
If Kuwait did not sit on an underground sea of oil, would we have gone in? Is our military presence in the Mideast unrelated to its control of two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves?
If human rights is our goal, why have we not gone into Darfur, the real hellhole of human rights? If democracy is what we are fighting for, why did we not invade Cuba, a dictatorship, 90 miles away, far more hostile to America than Saddam’s Iraq, and where human rights have been abused for half a century? Saddam never hosted nuclear missiles targeted at U.S. cities.
And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it?
Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion’s share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?
Empathy, a capacity for participating in another’s feelings or ideas, is indispensable to diplomacy. Carried too far, as it was by the Brits in the 1930s, it can lead to appeasement. But an absence of empathy can leave statesmen oblivious as to why their nation is hated, and with equally fateful consequences.
January 16, 2006 Issue
"And, to the poster that complained about the $$$$ we spend in Israel."
"In" Israel? Most of that dough doesn't leave this country. From Washington to our defense contractors.
Pat's anti-semitism is the reason I will never support Pat. He says some things that are insane, and then he comes on with his anti-Jew spiel.
I wonder if Pat's a disbeliever in the holocaust....wouldn't surprise me.
Pat's intellect has entered the 2+2=5 stage.
He no longer can think clearly on these issues.
A great many of his facts are right, but the package he ties them up in, and the conclusions he sends them to,
leave much to be desired. The same Arabs who "distrust" the USA for example , find something positive in AL Quaeda's "standing up to the United States"????
We have got our hands full dealing in general with "the Arab world". They are simply living on another planet.
And the populations of the oil-rich nations, especially Saudi Arabia, had better figure out what their place in the world might be when the ONLY thing they contribute to the planet is a resource that will someday not be in nearly so much demand as it is today. THIS aspect of Arab life is not discussed much, but it is essential to their intransigence and their enormous blind spots and their total isolation from the rest of the world.
Pat's only point is the one up his backside, which is still there as a result of his ongoing feud with the Bush family. He is like Democrats: he would rather undermine the U.S. as long as it hurts Bush.
Yea .. but most cases we deserved it ... oh the stories I could tell that my old brothers did .. LOL
Me .. I was a good girl and got 95's in conduct :0)
"To answer your question, one example - the UN resolution that "Sharon & Co" have "stomped on" most glaringly is UN resolution 194, otherwise known as right of return - for Palestinian refugees."
194 was a General Assembly resolution and was non-binding. Such a resolution, if implemented, would destroy the Jewish State. It should be noted that a far greater number of Jewish refugees were ethnically cleansed from the Arab nations where they had been living in many cases for countless centuries. Indeed, the new Iraqi constitution specifically bars a return of property to those Jews. Where are your UN resolutions about that situation?
As you mentioned earlier, of course it is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel. If it were virtually every Jew in the world would be an anti-Semite. It is anti-Semitic though: to hold the Jewish State to a higher standard than any other nation, to only concern oneself with the failings of the Jewish State and ignore all others, to demonise Israel, to deliberately lie about Israel. On that basis, Buchanan is a dyed-in-the-wool Jew-hater. His comparison of Iraq and a genocidal dictator with Israel and Ariel Sharon is ugly and despicable and totally disingenuous. Buchanan is a disgrace to his nation and his religion.
Okay...FOR Israel then...is that better??
Tracey had a busy day:
"Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, reached by telephone, responded to Clinton's remarks by saying, "On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559211/posts
Arab scholar and anything concerning Israel should never be taken seriously and the freeper on this thread who is doing so is an apologist.
While only 6 percent agreed with al-Qaeda’s aim to establish an Islamic state and only 7 percent approve of its methods, 20 percent admire the way al-Qaeda “stood up for Muslim causes” and 36 percent admire how it “confronts the U.S.”
Amazing how one civilization can be so completely wrong. It sounds like American attitudes towards blacks 100 years ago. It is that level of silliness.
"I've just been an admirer of his for some time, mostly based on his hard-line opposition to abortion and his America-first patriotic views"
No doubt he can spend his after-life swapping stories with Coughlin and Lindbergh while he stokes the fires.
LOL, Kennedy snookered by satire.
Priceless!
Neither have I.
What is it about guys named Pat?
Even my pre-Vatican II older relatives (Polish and Italian no less!) were not anti-semitic. I have a different feeling about Buchanan's family however.
>Get the picture!<
The one you paint? You could use a little air brush now and then.
Once again, for the third time, show me where Pat has supported Israel.
"Let's please not reduce criticism of my posts to now calling me an anti-semite."
Sleep with dogs, get fleas.
If you espouse support the murderous actions of "Palestinians", you will be treated as a terrorist sympathiser.
"I thought forums were a place to discuss things, but if you all want to just keep agreeing with each other and bashing anyone who shows up with a different take, so be it."
Ah yes, the typical troll line of "But but.. I thought it was a debate board!"
"Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life. " -Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Goes for people who espouse support for 'palestinian' terrorists and more than likely Buchanites as well.
That, together with profound ignorance of the west, reinforced by distorted media indoctrination, and no interest in learning otherwise, means the outcome is fore-ordained.
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.