Might the Arabs Have a Point?

Might the Arabs Have a Point?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
The American Conservative
16 January 2006
http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_16/buchanan.html

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.