Posted on 04/17/2002 5:49:48 AM PDT by Mom_Grandmother
How I corrected your post. Just my humble correction. Not perfect by any means
____________________________________________________________________________
The disconnect is my fault entirely. The statement too brief.
I am not sure I can do a much better job, but I'll try. I was addressing the entirely different cultural perspective, which is hard to do.
To begin, there are two levels of "foreign affairs": One is conducted by the government of a nation and another is in the minds of ordinary people. The former is discussed at length in various publications, including those in the academe; the latter, however, is harder to assess: what does the average Achmed on the Arab street think?
The "ordinary" people do not process information in a logical way. In fact, most of them do not even follow the international events. They do form opinions, however, oftentimes with only anecdotal evidence at hand. With no thorough examination behind it, this "opinion" is eventually reduced to a stereotype, such as "Germans are efficient," "Americans are wishy-washy in their choice of friends," "Syrians will brutally suppress all dissent."
Since these ordinary people do not participate in the affairs of the state directly, their views are usually overlooked until a riot breaks out. The importance of their views is twofold, however. Firstly, it is these views that determine how far the rulers, who actually govern the country, will go: they can go only as far as it is acceptable by the populous. Not optimal, not necessarily in the interest of the people, but acceptable to them. Secondly, it is the "ordinary" people of today that produce the government officials of tomorrow. Thus, the views of a thirty-year-old today will be implanted, at least in part, into the psyche of the children, who in turn will rule Jordan, Lebanon and Syria in ten-twenty years.
In that regard, the animosity towards Israel as expressed in the street is more portent to the future than the actions of the Arab government. This is because it is no longer about Israel but about the Jews. Well, it has always been about that, but now there are new developments: firstly, they stopped pretending and say so openly; and, secondly, anti-Semitism is no longer sporadic but is actively managed in the Mosques and schools. Ask yourself, what would you feel if, form elementary school onward, you would hear about Jewish doctors in the West bank infecting Arab babies with HIV as participation of experiments, or about Israeli government poisoning wells and rivers, etc.? I most certainly would be in rage.
History shows that this kind of rage lasts for at least a generation and always boils over. Having been indoctrinated with racial superiority, the Germans had to start a war; it was just a matter of time. The fervor, once attained, needs an outlet. It is similar today on the Arab street. What makes things disastrously worse is that our American concept of time makes us entirely unable to understand this. Famously, our attention span is six weeks. Our way to deal with things amounts to two wisdoms: if it ain't broken, don't fix it; and, if it is broken, don't think too much about the cause --- just start anew (and with a bigger budget, money solves everything). In contrast, the Europeans walk to work by the cathedrals erected centuries ago, they measure time in centuries. When you arrive in Israel, you will often hear that everything after Alexander the Great is modern history; after a few weeks, you understand why. This is even more evident when it comes to national turning points. The Kosovo Muslims talk about the decisive battle with the Serbs, which happened half of a millennium ago and was lost by the Muslims, as if it happened yesterday; the wounds are so fresh. Similarly, you will recall the outrage of the Arabs at the Bush's use of the word "crusade" for them it is modern history, the wounds are fresh. In all these cases, it is the feeling of an average man in the street that, although not necessarily learned, has a perception, perhaps stereotyped, of the world around him.
The Western world, especially the Europeans, believes that the rage in the Arab street is about Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not. Not only it is about the "infidel" Jews at large, but the object of rage is bigger still: the Arab's rage is the result of the envy of the West, combined with the feeling of impotence. The 500-year-long stagnation can no longer be explained by Turkish or British colonization: half a century of independence has produced a universal failure across the Arab world. Hence the feeling of helplessness, which is directed outwards --- both naturally (one tends to blame others first) and purposefully by the rulers. The rage is merely focused on Israel, which is easy to do given the religious differences and the fact that, in contrast to the U.S., Israel stands on the "sacred Muslim soil of the Caliphate." This is an infidel not in the abstract, but visible in the flesh. However, if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, the rage produced by 500 years of failure is not going to go away. Unfortunately, this point is lost on most in the West, including most in the upper echelons of our own administration.
Thus, however irrational, ill-formed the perceptions of the ordinary men are, they are crucially important to detect generations-long tendencies. One of such perceptions that come from the gut is the estimate of the opponent's power and resolve to use it. Until 1950s, you could safely travel around the world, not because America did not have enemies, but because the enemies knew that this country would use power to stand up for its citizens. The Latin American and African governments also had an incentive to reign in whatever American-haters they may have had on their territory: they could suffer American retributions in terms of trade and military alliances. That is how one treats both the official representatives and ordinary citizens of a powerful country.
Things have changed entirely, as you know. Just a few days ago, the Lebanese Minister of Foreign affairs literally dressed down… Collin Powell. What then, do you expect of the French and the Belgians? When even a third-world country, destroyed by Arafat's thugs and threaten to be annexed by Syria, is dressing down the Secretary of State? This happens, of course, because we it that. We ate the beating death of our Marine on a hijacked airplane in 1980s: our only retribution was to name one of the new warships after him. We ate the death of the hundreds of our soldiers in Lebanon: the conservative's hero, Ronald Reagan, pulled out without even a symbolic bombing in retribution (the sixth fleet was ready to scramble aircraft, the terrorist's targets were all known in the Bekka Valley, but Reagan was persuaded to withdraw by… Colin Powel, as I hear).
Our response to the Sep 11 was the last act that convinced the Arab world of our weakness. From their standpoint, the superpower is… degrading itself. The nation that has sent the man to the Moon also sent its boys to crawl through the caves in mud in search of just one man named Osama. I am not suggesting whether this is correct, just that this is how it is seen. This is because no Arab ruler would act like that, and many non-Western people, whether Arab or Russian, confuse kindness the kindness of a measured response with weakness. Arab rulers act differently. When Islamic fundamentalism appeared in Syria, their president Hafez Assad killed about 20,000 people in a matter of a few weeks, then bulldozed and razed this entire city of Hama, Syria. Turning it into a huge parking lot. Consider also what the King of Jordan did --- and inquire after the casualties, too -- when Arafat tried to takeover Jordan. Observe also the mass- scale gassing of the Kurds --- men, women, children --- by Hussein in Iraq. These are the actions expected from a strong ruler that feels humiliated. If a rule is humiliated and delivers anything else, he is week.
Having said the foregoing, I can explain my original remark very briefly. When a foreign minister dresses down our Secretary of State, this may be construed as a blunder, which is not necessarily typical and correctable. However, when you see a grass-roots initiative to arrest the Secretary of State, it means that the population at large no longer views America as strong. I forgot to mention the fact that is considered common knowledge in the ever shifting sands of the Middle-Eastern poetics: since time immemorial, an attack on an ambassador is grounds for war. In fact, such an attack, if undertaken, was always understood to be a declaration of war. Note that, although this fact is known even by a shopkeeper, the initiative to arrest Powell comes from lawyers, which are most certainly aware of possible consequences. So why do they do that? Because they no longer expect any retribution. The country that stood up for its citizens only once in three decades of attacks (by bombing Momar Gadhafi), that allowed its embassy to be held hostage for 444 days, that even after Sep 11 did not immediately bomb the h-ll out the Bekka Valley in Syria and terrorist centers in Iran --- such country will not exact a retribution.
They are correct: in view of the ancient rule regarding the sanctity of ambassadors, consider that: (i) it was our embassy in Iran that was taken hostage, (ii) Arafat has personally order the killing of our ambassador in Khartoum (both the CIA and the Mossad have authenticated recordings), (iii) it was two American embassies that were bombed with impunity recently, under the Clinton administration. If this is true, why should one expect any retribution from the U.S.? How many people here even put these events in line?
No wonder they call us both ignorant and arrogant. They tell us they would bomb the h-ll out of us --- we do nothing other than making the sacred weekly pilgrimage to the mall. They actually bomb us and tell us why --- we do nothing and begin soul- searching: why do they hate us? What would you call a person to whom you say, "Here is my grievance and I am going to kill you for it," and in response you hear, "But what is your grievance, why do hate me?" You would probably say, "I just told you, stupid." That's exactly what they call us.
And they have all the reasons in the world. Israel is the third country Arafat is trying to destroy. The first was Jordan, where his attempt was unsuccessful, and the second was Lebanon, where he succeeded. In response, we call him a partner for piece. He murders our ambassador, and the very next day he walks on the red carpet arriving with an official visit to Washington. I am sorry, but besides whatever politics and morals involved, our behavior qualifies as large-scale, consistent, unparalleled stupidity. It is not unlike my coming to tell you, "I sleep with you wife," to which you respond, "But we have to look forward and I consider you a partner. Perhaps, we should start a business together." That would not be kindness, wisdom, foresightfulness, or anything like that, would it? That is shear stupidity couples with the lack of spine.
When a bunch of lawyers initiate the arrest of our foreign minister, it is a clear indication that we are no longer viewed as a superpower --- in fact, no power at all.
Sorry for the length of the post. I covered a lot of ground, and wrote probably more than you wanted to read. But how else can one convey the notions that stem from the gut in other cultures?
Hopefully, the revision has not made it worse and has not introduced many new typos.
I read stuff like this I really don't know what to do laugh, cry, or bang my head against the wall until the pain goes away.
That way we don't have to be concerned about homicidal attacks on the U.S. We can start with these Palestinian Homicide Bomber apologist attorneys. Let them see how much money they can make suing Akbar for abusing Abdul's camel in Saudi Arabia!!
There is, however, another reason as well: the sophisticated Western mind cannot fathom that someone evil would be so simplistic as to announce his two intentions. A Westerner is more likely to be suspicious of someone whose intentions he does not comprehend fully. And, conversely, when someone comes up and says, "I'll kill you," that person tends to think, "He must be kidding."
For some reason, we expect evil to be complicated.
There is no question that at some point democracy will prevail in that part of the world. My concern is about the transition: will it be peaceful or not? Most empires of the world, with a notable exception of the Soviet Union, have disintegrated at the end of some serious war. I believe this is because the empires' leaders underestimate their then-current weaknesses, bask in old glory, and consequently start wars that they cannot win. Couple this also with the old device of uniting the nation against a common enemy when the regime is weak. In sum, I worry about what happens when the Arab street revolts fully. If the majority of cases is an indication, it will be prime time for the rulers of the street to start a full-scale war against Israel and the West. Now, if we win that war and remained standing, we will enjoy those dramatic changes that you're talking about.
Thanks again for your insights.
...We have GOT to recognize the importance of cultural survivalism. The US is in danger of stretching the definition of multiculturalism to one that embraces a faith (ISLAM!)and worse a Government system(Sharia) that embraces xenophobia and Genocide. This is the ULTIMATE fox in the henhouse.
A Dutch paraphrase is funnier...."Tying the Ham to the Cat!" I'd rather be the cat than the ham in that thought experiment! Is the half life of a Ham tied to a Shroedinger cat "1"? or "2"?
For some time I have been thinking of going back to those old essays and making for my files before they disappeared in some future software revision. When I do so, I'd be glad to send you a copy (comments are always welcome and appreciated).
In the meantime, you and I better get some sleep: what are we doing here on FR this early on a Monday morn'?
Thanks again and have a good night.
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.