Arabs Angry But Cooperative
A recent survey of the views of 3,800 Arab adults about America and
Americans, conducted by Zogby International (a U.S. company specializing
in public opinion research), showed clearly that most of them like us
as a people and a country but strongly object to the policies of the
Bush administration and its backers in Congress. In all eight Arab societies
(Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.R.),
Morocco, Egypt, and Arabs in Israel) polled, the governments of other
Western countries, such as Canada, France, and Germany, received much
higher popularity ratings than the U.S. and Israel.
In Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, most respondents have a
favorable impression of American democracy, freedoms, and technological
capabilities. They did not express hatred toward Americans. Less than
10 percent, however, see anything positive in the present state of U.S.-Arab
relations, mainly because of the continued unwillingness of the Bush
administration to have Israel end the oppression of the Palestinians.
Arabs recognize that the U.S. has the military power to defy their wishes,
as well as the wishes of the rest of the world. So they seem grudgingly
resigned to cooperate with whatever action President Bush may take against
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After all, American forces are based in Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, the U.A.R., and Qatar.
When Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri visited neighboring capitals
to rally support, he was cold-shouldered. Arab leaders fear, however,
that an American attack on Iraq would foment serious protests among
their people and an upsurge in terrorism. In the aftermath of an invasion
of Iraq, moreover, they see the threat of chaos, not only in Iraq but
also throughout the region, as well as a permanent American military
presence in Iraq and American control of Iraq's oil resources. Arab
leaders would much prefer if President Bush gave the disarmament of
Iraq by arms inspectors another chance and respected the decisions of
the Security Council on the use of force. That would make it substantially
easier for Arab governments to explain and defend the use of their facilities
by U.S. armed forces.
Arab media, similar to media elsewhere, persistently accuse the U.S.
government of having double standards. Saudi Prince Naif asked why Congress
spends billions of dollars annually to increase Israel's arsenal of
the most sophisticated delivery systems capable of taking nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapons to any place in the Arab world and beyond. In
view of the daily destruction of Palestinian lives and property and
the frequent threats from the Sharon government, Arab commentators wonder
why Israel should not also be required to eliminate its weapons of mass
destruction.
In the meantime, the Arab League finds itself faced with a new bill
in Congress instructing the President to move the U.S. embassy from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and thus further inflame U.S.-Arab relations at
this difficult time. The Saudi paper Al-Madina considers the bill sheer
"provocation of Muslim feelings." The U.S. is "crossing
an Arab and Islamic red line, undermining its credibility as a superpower,
and jeopardizing its anti-terror-campaign." To embitter Muslims
still further, Rev. Jerry Falwell recently insisted on the Donahue Show
that the prophet Muhammad was "a terrorist." That in turn
caused another storm of indignation throughout Muslim media. This gratuitous
insult of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims by a Christian leader was
a terrible disservice to U.S. efforts to show Muslims the tolerance
that both enlightened Christians and Americans treasure.
The continuing provocations traded between some of America's most influential
leaders and Islamic societies can only lead to more violent responses
on the part of those who see no other way to express their futility.
Obviously, we are short of politicians who know how to make peace rather
than war.