Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011 From: The Old Pueblo Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It surprised me to read this. It seems to me that treating the entire Muslim world as a single monolithic entity, with a single agenda might not be the best way to view this issue. It wasn't my intention to paint them as a single monolithic entity. But there are the governments and the people of these nations, and I've seen examples of how nations which were once "allies" became enemies overnight, and vice versa. So, however you view them, one thing I've noticed is that whatever you see there today might not be there tomorrow. That's really what I meant. We can't even assume that a Muslim nation like Turkey is stable anymore. quote:
It's rather like expecting all of Europe - from Russia to Ireland, Norway to Malta - to be a single unit with a single agenda. Our perceptions of the Soviet Bloc might be a better analogy. quote:
Oil producing countries will have differing goals to non-oil producing countries. Countries that enjoy limited democracy (eg Lebanon) will have different issues to monarchies and dictatorships. While there are a number of issues on which the Arab world seems united (see below), there will be variations. We are unable to change the past, but sensitivity to these variations is one area where the West can lift its game But you can't really count on that. Iraq was once our "enemy," now they're our "friend." Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our "friend," yet Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi. Were Bin Laden's interests the same as the Saudi government, and if not, why not? quote:
While I agree that " the notion that they're all a bunch of crazed religious zealots who won't be happy until the entire world is Muslim" is nonsense, I am surprised to learn that you are unclear about the main agenda from an Arab perspective. That might say a thing or two about the quality of news analysis and information conveyed by the US media about the Arab world. My impression is that the US media generally fails to convey an impartial picture of the Arab world and its issues. I won't deny that the US media are flawed and biased, but a lot of it also depends on a clear, concise, unambiguous message coming from the Muslim world, which hasn't really been forthcoming. Why are there so many Muslims who insist on acting exactly the way the US media portrays them? That's probably why the US government puts its all eggs in supporting dictatorial and/or militaristic regimes, since it's all they can really depend on as being "stable" (or at least the closest thing to it). This is the situation that we're faced with. If the path for peace involves the US government changing its policies in the Middle East (which I've agreed with), then we have to have something coherent to work with in order for the American people to support it. The article I linked in the OP was directed at Americans, and the overall discussion seems to revolve around US policies and how they affect the Arab world. But the question still remains: How can Americans be convinced to support the policy changes we're discussing? quote:
For as long as I have been following these issues, there have been 3 main areas of contention listed by Arabs that require addressing. These are: (1) Israel; (2) Western intervention in the internal affairs of Arab countries; and (3) control of oil, and the benefits that flow from possession of that resource. There's nothing new or revolutionary here, these points of contention have been repeatedly stated. The West's response to these demands has been virtually non-existent. Not non-existent. The fact that the West is actively involved in the Middle East should clearly show that the West is responding. (1) Israel is probably the most complicated issue in this whole situation. This is purely a religious issue and nothing more. It has nothing whatsoever to do with oil, and in fact, we've compromised our oil interests by supporting Israel. More on this in a moment. (2) Western intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is not exactly new, nor has it been confined to the Middle East. There's absolutely no way that this general policy will change until there are some major ideological changes in the American political consciousness. People outside of America (and even most people inside America) do not understand this; some might think it's a matter of an insidious conspiracy or some rogue element in the government. Too many look for rats under the couch while ignoring the elephant in the living room. (3) Oil is important, but in this situation, I think to mention it is a red herring more than anything else. Obviously, the Arabs are in control of their own oil, making scads of money and living a life of wealth and privilege, while the American economy has been crippled. There's every indication that the Arabs are the ones holding the upper hand here, so what are they complaining about? If there are other Arab nations left out in the cold and not being able to share that wealth, then they need to take it up with their fellow Arabs and Muslims, not with the West. quote:
Is it a case of Arabs not having a coherent agenda or the West choosing not to listen to and/or ignoring the Arabs' agenda? They're not ignoring the Arabs, but very often, it's the Arabs who send out mixed messages. quote:
I don't believe for a moment that the situation is irredeemable. There are a number of steps that the West could take that would greatly improve relations between Arabs and the West. But it always takes two sides to make peace. The Arabs might also have to take steps, and are they willing to take those steps? quote:
To continue with the example of Israel you have chosen: Pressure can be applied to Israel to force it to the negotiating table and to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians. It is surely clear to a blind person that Israel has no intention of giving up the West Bank or allowing a viable Palestinian State. If Israeli intransigence wins the day, the situation might well become irredeemable. It is also clear to a blind person that Israel cannot survive without Western support. So Israel can be given a choice - give up the Occupation and conclude a just peace or forget about Western support. Israel would have choice but to comply. But would that guarantee that there would be no more terrorism? Would that guarantee peace? The question is still on the table. Sure, the West can put pressure on Israel, although I don't think that Israel would immediately cave in if Western support was withdrawn. If they felt even more isolated, they could become even more desperate and resort to drastic measures. Nobody wants that, so it would be more prudent to go carefully on this. quote:
Introducing consistent fair and even handed policies towards the region by the US would be another simple step towards resolving outstanding issues. The Arab world is understandably incensed by the blatant anti-Arab/Muslim bias of current US policy. One example out of a myriad: The US and the West have turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons for decades, but are on the verge of threatening outright war on Iran to punish Iran for its alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Such naked double standards are guaranteed to produce an adverse reaction in the Arab world. I'll admit that the U.S. government dropped the ball in its failed policies towards Iran. I think it's a little too late for our government to be worried about a possible threat from Iran when they were apparently not so worried when the Iranians seized our embassy in 1979 - or when they traded arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra Affair. However, I don't think the U.S. will go to war with Iran, not at this point. That could likely trigger a backlash from other major powers which the U.S. would not be equipped to handle. More than likely, the U.S. is hoping for some sort of internal revolt within Iran, although I'm not sure what the chances of that are. You're right about the double standards. I've mentioned this myself numerous times. But just as they're incensed by an anti-Arab/Muslim bias in U.S. policy (which isn't how I would characterize it, since we're extremely pro-Arab/Muslim when it comes to Arab royalty), Americans are incensed by their blatant anti-Americanism, as well as anti-Christianity. I think it's a double standard to rail against Israel when many of these Arab/Muslim regimes don't exactly have the best records when it comes to human rights violations and treatment of religious/ethnic minorities in their own countries. This is something that shouldn't be ignored, and this is something that the Arab/Muslim nations are going to have to own up to eventually. quote:
So there are two straightforward measures that could greatly improve the US and the West's relations with the Arab world. At their core, there are two simple principles involved that really ought to govern any nation's foreign policy - promotion of peace and balanced policy. From an Arab perspective, it is incomprehensible and provocative that such principles are absent from current policy. The ongoing failure to put such principles into actual policy generates a major part of antipathy Arabs currently feel towards the West and the USA in particular. There are many other issues that require change on both sides. But putting such basic principles into policy ought to remove much of the poison from Arab-US relations and to change the anitpathy the 'Arab street' feels towards the US. It would be criminal if the US and the West generally failed to implement the changes necessary to prevent the current antipathy becoming permanent. Unless and until these steps are taken, we cannot say that the situation is damaged beyond repair. Whatever geopolitical aspirations may have existed in the Western governments or in the various Middle Eastern factions seem to have been superseded by the fact that blood has already been spilled. They've attacked us, we've attacked them, and it's turned into a blood feud. That's how I would characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well. Whatever original grievances there were, it's gone beyond that, so addressing the original grievances may not be sufficient at this point. I would agree that it would be a step in the right direction, but I also think we need to look at it realistically and not let down our guard too soon. I also think that we need to consider our own interests as well, but that would require internal changes in perception of what our interests actually are, as well as how we view our position in the world overall. That's really the major issue we face at this point, which is more an internal matter, and that's why we might inevitably have to pull out of the Middle East entirely. But that's a political impossibility right now, mainly due to the widespread belief among the body politic that the world would fall apart into anarchy without active American intervention. That's what remains unaddressed in many of these debates. As I said, it wasn't my intention to make it seem that I was painting the Arab/Muslim world with a broad brush, but in examining the question of why Arabs don't like the U.S. and their perceptions of U.S. policy, it's also important to consider how the U.S. perceives them, no matter if it's colored by media bias or not. Also involved in this is how Americans tend to view the outside world in general, and in my observations and readings of America-bashers from different factions around the world, they never seem to address this particular issue, except in a dismissive and left-handed way. If the solution involves America taking the steps you outlined above, then this is really where it has to start. This is why I'm doubtful of any real solution here. As I mentioned way back in my OP in this thread, if the problem of why the Arabs don't like the U.S. is due to our policies, then it becomes necessary to examine the motives and attitudes which formulated those policies to begin with. The article only gave us half the story, and that's what I wanted to discuss. It's not simply a matter of listing the policies that America must change, since we have to also examine why we had those policies to begin with and the ideals, principles, and attitudes which motivated their formulation. The policies you mentioned which offend the Arabs are only a symptom, but in order to change them and find any real solution, we have to examine the root causes behind those policies - and the sacred cows worshiped by both liberals and conservatives who are afraid to tread upon them. Even the America-bashers seem reluctant to address the root causes here, which is why I often wonder about the positions they hold.
|