Tweet
I read an interesting article in the NY Times this today, which ran with the headline "Anger at the US Said to Be at New High."
It doesn't mean to, but raises an interesting point. What should the arab world do in the aftermath of september 11?
Basically, several things in the article bothered me. According to the a Jordanian journalist, Mr. Khouir, "everyone [he] knows wants Hussein removed." He then goes on to say that he doesn't trust Ameri ca to do it, because "they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests."
Well, aside from the fact that the 2nd is blatantly untrue, it raises a question. At what point should the Arab world start taking care of itself?
If there was a man such as Hussein in, say, Eastern Europe (say, in a balkan nation)the EU would most likely invade, and overthrow him before things got worse. Yet even in the aftermath of 9/11, there was barely a murmur of support from "America's staunchest Arab allies" Egypt and Jordan.
The article goes on to say that the Arabs feel closer to American culture than to European, yet now feel like jilted lovers, because America supports oppressive regimes. (True, although Jordan is one of the beter nations; Saudi Arabia should be condemned, but that's another story).
Yet where's the support in the Arab world itself for democratic reforms? The only nation which I've seen where there's such an interest is Iran, which has been under American sanctions since the late 70's.
Here's a few ironic comments: "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations, he said."
Does anybody else see the irony involved in that last quote?
Finally, Mr. Aly, director of the Ahram center for political and strategic studies in Cairo, cited four major flaws in the Bush agenda: support for Mr. Sharon, unequivocally. Mr. Aly then said the support for Israel was the driving force behind Bush's desire to topple Saddam. The other three flaws were: dealing with Iraq wihout preparation, misguided policies on dealing with terrorists, and the negative general rhetoric from Washington about muslims and arabs.
You could argue that many of those flaws existed. However, considering how the president has tried to emphasize that he's not trying to declare war on islam, and came on the air almost immediately after the first hate crime, warning people to stop, I'd like to know what rhetoric is meant.
It doesn't mean to, but raises an interesting point. What should the arab world do in the aftermath of september 11?
Basically, several things in the article bothered me. According to the a Jordanian journalist, Mr. Khouir, "everyone [he] knows wants Hussein removed." He then goes on to say that he doesn't trust Ameri ca to do it, because "they are the last people in the world who will work on the behalf of Arab interests."
Well, aside from the fact that the 2nd is blatantly untrue, it raises a question. At what point should the Arab world start taking care of itself?
If there was a man such as Hussein in, say, Eastern Europe (say, in a balkan nation)the EU would most likely invade, and overthrow him before things got worse. Yet even in the aftermath of 9/11, there was barely a murmur of support from "America's staunchest Arab allies" Egypt and Jordan.
The article goes on to say that the Arabs feel closer to American culture than to European, yet now feel like jilted lovers, because America supports oppressive regimes. (True, although Jordan is one of the beter nations; Saudi Arabia should be condemned, but that's another story).
Yet where's the support in the Arab world itself for democratic reforms? The only nation which I've seen where there's such an interest is Iran, which has been under American sanctions since the late 70's.
Here's a few ironic comments: "People in the Arab world are much more educated than before and they resent their regimes." This resentment would strengthen the hand of such extremist organizations, he said."
Does anybody else see the irony involved in that last quote?
Finally, Mr. Aly, director of the Ahram center for political and strategic studies in Cairo, cited four major flaws in the Bush agenda: support for Mr. Sharon, unequivocally. Mr. Aly then said the support for Israel was the driving force behind Bush's desire to topple Saddam. The other three flaws were: dealing with Iraq wihout preparation, misguided policies on dealing with terrorists, and the negative general rhetoric from Washington about muslims and arabs.
You could argue that many of those flaws existed. However, considering how the president has tried to emphasize that he's not trying to declare war on islam, and came on the air almost immediately after the first hate crime, warning people to stop, I'd like to know what rhetoric is meant.
Comment