I'm experiencing a disconnect between this article and your statement. Could you clarify it?
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 Salim 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 ant 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 there 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 Muslim 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 African and Latin American 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 eat 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 t scramble aircraft, the terrorist's targets were all known in the Bekkaa Valley, but Reagan was persuaded to withdraw by… Collin 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 Asad killed about 30,000 people in a matter of a week or two and cemented an entire town, 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 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 Bekkaa 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 kindles, 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?