All Posts

post a reply | post a new topic

Author

Topic: gold zinger!!

topic by truth 7/26/2002 (23:03)

reply top A further reaction to Bush's speech For much of the last century the US stood before the world as a beacon of democracy and self-determination. Now, for many in the Arab world, the beacon has been all but extinguished says James Zogby. I am writing on my return from an eight-day visit to the Arab world. It was a difficult time to be in the region. President George W. Bush’s strange and disturbing speech of June 24 had been received like a blow to the system. As a result, every political conversation was punctuated with frustration and, in many cases, fury. Arab moderates, in particular, feel betrayed, and with good reason. For more than a decade now, especially since the end of the Gulf War, they have ceded to the United States the role of exclusive Middle East peacemaker. Wanting desperately to put the Arab-Israeli conflict to rest, so as to enable the region to move forward politically and economically, they embraced the promise of Madrid and the US role as 'honest broker'. When, in the 1990s peace efforts faltered due to Israeli resistance, Arabs looked to the United States as a restraining force. At times, the United States delivered. It was US pressure that undid Shamir in 1992 and Netanyahu in 1996. With the election of Sharon and the worsening of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, Arabs remained convinced that, at the appropriate time, the US would apply the needed restraint and restore peace-making efforts. This was especially true in recent months as the situation spun out of control. While Arabs criticized President Bush’s April 4th speech, they found some hope in his call for an 'immediate' pullback. When Sharon refused and Bush responded by calling him a 'man of peace' Arab leaders were troubled. Many of them traveled to the United States seeking to press the Administration back to a more balanced peace-making role. They waited for the 'big speech', hoping to see in it the fruits of their labor. In this context, the Bush speech was a slap in the face. Whatever its origins in US domestic policies and its overall lack of coherence, what the speech did clearly establish was the harsh reality that the US was not going to act to stop Sharon’s near obsessive desire to destroy the Palestinian Authority. Another deeply troubling aspect of the speech was its rudely dismissive treatment of Palestinian aspirations for democracy. By ignoring the real Palestinian situation on the ground; a destroyed economy; a devastated infrastructure, a near complete military reoccupation, and, with all of this, heightened anger and despair - the call for a 'multi-party democracy' came off more like a cruel taunt than a promise. For much of the last century the US stood before the world as a beacon of democracy and self-determination. Now, for many in the Arab world, the beacon has been all but extinguished. I, too, have been deeply affected, and not only by the Israeli onslaught, the US’s failure to provide leadership and the Arab reaction to this distressing situation. I am, after all, an Arab American. For 30 years now I have been working full-time on these issues and traveling to the Middle East. I have strong family ties and deeply rooted friendships in all parts of the Arab world. The despair and anger I encounter concerns me. Because I am an American, I am also deeply troubled by the disaffection I see toward my country. Let me be brutally blunt. We are, all of us, in a hell of a mess. Those of us who care both about the US-Arab relationship and providing all of our people with a better future based on international cooperation, economic progress and an expansion of rights and opportunity, need to take a long hard look at where we are and where we need to go. If the post September 11 world exposed anything to us all, it was the profound gap in understanding that exists between the United States and the Arab world, and the dangers that extremist ideologies pose to both worlds. Both of our worlds are confronted by forces that seek to provoke a clash of 'civilizations'. You have your extremists and fundamentalists and we have ours. Both feed off of each other and reinforce each other. If left unchecked, the corrosive force they represent will only further erode the structure of relationships that have shaped our world. In the face of the challenge these forces pose, a collective effort must be made to confront them. For our part, in the United States, we must challenge the dangerous drift of US foreign policy toward unilateralism and confrontation. We must build a broadly based coalition of those who will be most affected by the world the ideologues seek to create. The elements of such a coalition include: racial and ethnic communities, liberal religious groups, democrats and civil libertarians and the US business community that needs international cooperation not confrontation in order to expand and prosper. We must engage in a struggle to restore diplomacy to international relations and to secure democracy and political rights in domestic affairs. Arabs too must face this challenge. It is no longer possible to wait for an external agent of change. Extremist ideologies must be confronted and exposed as bankrupt and incapable of providing real political solutions. Basing themselves on anger and despair they provide nothing but a future based on conflict. Arab society must be pressed from within to make more progress toward openness and opportunity. And we, both of us, must engage each other for mutual reinforcement. As the extremists feed off of each other for reinforcement of their vision of a clash of civilizations, Arab and American moderates must work together to change the current dynamic that is leading us toward confrontation. We need more efforts like the Baker Institute sponsored US-Syrian dialogue and the promised GCC and Arab League proposed public information campaign. But what we do not need is an American television channel talking at the Arabs, or an Arab television channel talking at the Americans. What we need is a sustained campaign where we talk to each other and listen to learn from each other. Americans, for example, need to meet and get to know Arabs as they really are. The conversations I had during my recent visit with anguished Arab moderates need to be heard by hundreds of thousands of Americans. We need more, not less interaction. This is so important because, in fact, most Americans do not know Arabs, have never had conversations with them and, therefore, do not know their concerns and their aspirations. No doubt, the current state of affairs is a mess. But there is a way forward. It is to engage and to work for change within our societies and between our two worlds. It will not be easy. But to surrender to despair and cynicism will only allow the extremists to win. For comments or information, contact jzogby@aaiusa.org or http://www.aaiusa.org. Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of the Arab American Institute

reply by truth 7/26/2002 (23:05)

reply top How top US congressmen care about Palestinans? On one level, it was almost fun to watch the much smarter Mathews trap these two powerful Congressmen in their ignorance. On the other hand it was damned irritating and even frightening to listen to them spout on says J. Zogby. Within a matter of a few weeks two of the United States' top congressional leaders appeared separately on the same television program to let the country know how little they knew or cared about the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was on May 1 that Texas Republican Congressman Richard Armey, appeared on 'Hardball', a nationally televised political program hosted by Chris Mathews. Here is part of their exchange: MATTHEWS: OK. Let's talk about the realities over there. There's a fight between the Arabs and the Israelis over who owns the Pal--all of Palestine. Do you support the idea that there will be a Palestine state alongside Israel? ARMEY: I am perfectly content to have a Palestinian state alongside Israel if it is a state that honors others borders. MATTHEWS: You are in total, 180 disagreement with Tom DeLay who said this week that the entire West Bank belongs to Israel and it belongs to that country that's not an Arab country. ...It should not have a statehood. ARMEY: No, I'm perfectly content to have a Palestinian state. I am not content to give up any part of Israel for that purpose of that Palestinian state. MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Tom DeLay's, whose resolution you're going to put on the floor tomorrow and schedule, has said that the entire West Bank, he calls it Judean Samaria, belongs to Israel. How can you say that this resolution doesn't support the DeLay position which is Israel has a right to grab the entire West Bank? ARMEY: No, I--I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank. I'm also content to have the Palestinians have a homeland and even for that to be somewhere near Israel, but I'm not content to see Israel give up land for the purpose of peace to the Palestinians who will not accept it and would not honor it. It is time to... MATTHEWS: Well, where do you put the Palestinian state, in Norway? ARMEY: ...No, no, that's not--that's not at all true. There are many Arab nations that have many hundreds of thousands of acres of land and--and soil and property and opportunity to create a Palestinian state. MATTHEWS: So you would transport--you would transport the Palestinians from Palestine to somewhere else and call it their state? ARMEY: ...Most of the people who now populate Israel were transported from all over the world to that land and they made it their home. The Palestinians can do the same, and we're per--perfectly content to work with the Palestinians in doing that. We are not willing to sacrifice Israel for the notion of a Palestinian homeland. ...I happened to believe that the Palestinians should leave. ...I am content to have Israel occupy that land that it now occupies and to have those people who have been aggressors against Israel retired to some other arena, and I would be happy to have them make a home. I would be happy to have all of these Arab nations that have been so hell bent to drive Israel out of the Middle East to get together, find some land and make a home for the Palestinians. I think it can be done. Appearing with Mathews on June 18, Armey's fellow Texas Republican Tom DeLay, had the following conversation: MATTHEWS: What would be the point of [the Palestinians] negotiating? What would be the point of them laying down their arms and opposing terrorism? Why would the Palestinians do that? What would be in it for them? DeLAY: Well, it'd be--for them, it would be a--a--a prosperous life in Israel.... MATTHEWS: In Israel. You mean, they would all be condemned to living as part of the Israeli government? They would be under the Israeli government forever. That would be the goal. DeLAY: I think it's pretty--pretty awesome that you think that they would be condemned to live in the most pos--prosperous nation in the--in the area. I mean, you--you look at Israel, a democracy. And it's--the-the prosperity that is generated for their citizens because of freedom to associate freedom to--to start your own businesses... MATTHEWS: ...Should they become part of Israel? DeLAY: Certainly, they should become part of Israel. MATTHEWS: Should they become citizens? DeLAY: Cert--certainly, they should become citizens. And--and They should--they--they should start schools. We should help them with hospitals. We should more or less impo--impose a--or bring a Marshall Plan to--to these areas so that they can have the prosperity and hope that obviously Arafat and the Palestinian Authority is not giving them. What is, of course, striking about the observations made by both Amrey and DeLay, is that, in addition to their obvious contempt for Arab rights and total ignorance is that they stand in total contradiction to one another. Armey calls for 'expulsion', DeLay for 'citizenship'. Now before you dismiss both men too quickly it is important to note that they are among the most influential members of Congress. Armey is the Republican Majority Leader of the Congress and DeLay is the Republican Whip, the third highest post in his party. As such, they are in positions of power that make them central to decision making. It was DeLay, for example, who last month sponsored and forced passage of a notorious anti-Palestinian 'solidarity with Israel' resolution. And Armey is one of the leading forces behind a bill, currently pending in the Congress, to place new sanctions on Syria. These are men with great knowledge of the legislative process and men who have a detailed understanding of budgetary matters and who can debate the intricacies of a broad range of social issues. But in the case of the Middle East, they neither know the details, nor do they care to master the intricacies. On one level, it was almost fun to watch the much smarter Mathews trap these two powerful Congressmen in their ignorance. On the other hand it was damned irritating and even frightening to listen to them spout on. It was interesting to watch the second half of Mathew's show. DeLay had gone and the guest, who came on next was Craig Crawford, a political analyst. His response to Mathew's first question was refreshing: Mathews: Are you amazed that guys like Tom DeLay and Dick Armey...have never given any thought to this question?... Crawford: I've got to tell you, I think that interview revealed how little some of our leaders have thought about this issue...particularly when-you know their real focus is domestic policy...you're talking about the...global question. DeLay's focused on-it's a domestic issue for him. It's not an international issue...It's just domestic politics. And...the evangelical Christians and the Jewish right have formed a coalition and folks like DeLay are-are in the league. This much is clear. For DeLay and Armey, and too many others in Congress, what matters most is domestic US politics. You could see it, or read it, in their responses. What they cared about was not being right, or even being informed. Rather what was on their minds was they did not want to say anything that might irritate the voter groups who they know to be very pro-Israel. And so when confronted by a tough question their brain grasped for an answer they hoped would not get them in any trouble. DeLay may have recalled that Armey got in trouble for his call to expel the Palestinians, and so he fell on a different answer. You could almost hear in his sputtering response the inner struggle for an answer that could incorporate what he hoped were the essentials: Israel is good; Palestinians were to blame, etc. What came out made no sense-but it was safe. And, DeLay hoped, this would at least indicate his support for Israel. The tragedy in all of this is that it brings home the reality that the Middle East conflict, in America, is a domestic political issue. And while Armey and DeLay must be faulted for not understanding the reality of Middle East history and politics, Arabs too must be faulted for not understanding the realities of US politics. It is a sad but true fact that, as one member of Congress told me years ago, for most of his colleagues, the 'national interests of the United States' are defined as their reelection to Congress. To transform American policy, therefore, it is imperative to engage in the internal US policy debate and to bring it directly to the people and to shape their understanding of the issues and to help them to care about them. This is what Israel understands and acts on, and, up until now, Arabs do not. And there is a lesson in all of this for Arab Americans too. American Jews and others who care about Israel, vote, give money and work to earn the support of Congress Members. Arab Americans and their allies must do the same. They are starting to do this and they are making progress-their efforts are needed now more than ever. As for Armey and DeLay: Armey is retiring from Congress, but DeLay is running for reelection. He has a sizeable Arab American constituency in his district. Wouldn't it be nice if they taught him a lesson in 2002?

reply by Lynette 7/27/2002 (23:20)

reply top America couldn't give a shit about the Palestinian people. If they did they would have been much more pro active in evenhanded and unbiased mediation. America only steps in when it politically suits her to do so. King George had better wake up because the ENTIRE world is sick to death of the CRAP that is currently going on in that 1/2 acre blood drenched sandhill!