You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Middle East
Arabs Say Bush Words Are Pretty in Someone Else’s Mouth
2003-11-07
As Jonah Goldberg says: "wasn’t this a line in Deliverance?"
In calling for more democracy in the Middle East, President Bush echoed what many Arabs have said for years. But with Bush as the messenger, many were skeptical that the United States would push for real change in the region’s autocratic rule. The speech Thursday in Washington, televised throughout the Arab world, also provoked resentment
what else - Arabs seething
since many Arabs believe his government manufactured reasons to wage war on Iraq and regularly sides unfairly with Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.
Cuz the Joooos ain’t worthless Islamonazis imposing mayhem, theocracy, and anti-american hatred everywhere
In its Friday edition, a signed editorial in the leading Lebanese daily An-Nahar described the speech as "very attractive words" but said that "before they become tangible policies that deal with the real problems, they will continue to be boring, empty rhetoric."
In a signed boring empty rhetorical editorial, the Lebanese paper said...
"Exposing the region’s ills is useless. We already know them. ... What is required is a realization that the underlying problem continues to be Palestine and the obscene American bias for Israel and against Arabs, their interests and hopes," wrote columnist Sahar Baasiri.
"We know what’s wrong, we’re just to ingrained with victimhood, honor/shame, and pig-headed stubbornness to want to do anything about it."
Lebanon’s left-wing daily As-Safir commented that Bush’s speech "lacked the practical and necessary suggestions for achieving his vision for the region." There was no official reaction from Middle Eastern governments, and little public response, since the speech came after dark in the Middle East when Muslims are breaking their daylight fast in the holy month of Ramadan — and on the eve of the Islamic day of prayer, when many newspapers do not publish. But political analysts said Bush’s plea would ring true with advocates of democracy who for years, even decades, have demanded an end to autocratic governments and corrupt politics. "Bush is reading the situation correctly — there is a great need for greater democratic reform across the Middle East," Gehad Auda, a political scientist at Egypt’s Helwan University, said in a telephone interview. The analysts also said, however, that Arabs were likely to react more to the speaker than to the speech.
Pavlov’s Arabs
"Arabs want democracy. They hate their corrupt regimes more than they hate the United States," wrote Abdul Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "But," he added, "they are not going to listen attentively to the speech of the American president, first, because the consecutive American administrations, in the past 50 years, supported those regimes ... and because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."
He's talking about Japan and Germany and Italy... Oh. Guess he isn't. Never mind.
Bush did say in his speech that Western governments had been wrong for decades in backing undemocratic, corrupt leaders in the Middle East. He had praise for steps toward democracy taken by some Arab governments — generally U.S. allies — and renewed his criticism of what he regards as despotic rule in Iran and Syria.
That's 'cuz they're... ummm... despots.
In Iran, the media made no mention of Bush’s address. The one newspaper published Friday in Syria also ignored it, though Syrians could easily have seen it, because it was broadcast on the pan-Arab television network Al-Jazeera. Syrian political analysts reacted with the usual dismissal of American criticism. "How can we believe that the one who is biased in favor of Israel ... can bring acceptable democratic projects to the people of the region?" said analyst Imad Fawzi al-Shueibi.
"And we believe it even less 'cuz we're the despots he's talking about. He's gotta be wrong. Somewhere..."
In the United Arab Emirates, the Sharjah-based daily Al-Khaleej saw the American leader’s address as just an excuse to continue the same old U.S. policies. "Swamping the Arab region with talk about democracy, terrorism, and dictatorship will overtake any talk about the Zionist (Israeli) massacres and the necessity of stopping them, and the Iraqi occupation that should come to an end," the paper’s editorial said.
"Our minds are one-track and one-track only. How can anyone expect us to do anything while the Zionists rule? Do more than one thing at a time? It's a Zionist concept!"
The few people out on the street who were willing to speak publicly about the speech echoed the mixed feelings of political analysts. In the Jordanian capital Amman, businessman Khalid Salim said: "I support completely President Bush’s speech concerning democracy in the Middle East and hope that his words will take effect soon." But in the Syrian capital Damascus, 37-year-old worker Ali Rida said Bush’s talk of democracy didn’t conceal the true U.S. policy in the region. "If they want to export democracy through wars, we do not want it," he said. "Let them keep it to themselves."
"Assad, we will defend you with our blood!"
I’d say those comments typify why the Middle East is a stinking pustule of hatred, willful ignorance, and shame....
Posted by:Frank G

#20  silly, since if the GOP had known those rules going, they could have changed their campaigning patterns to focus more on getting the best popular vote

Besides the campaigning issue (which isn't so convincing to me), people that abstained from voting because the result in their own states was certain (e.g. Texas) might have decided to go and vote instead, knowing that the nationwide result wasn't certain. So, Bush might have won by popular vote, if popular vote was the crucial one to have...
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-11-7 9:06:47 PM  

#19  Snellenr, You can quibble that they had limted this or that, or that the US involvement doesn't count because the UK and Russians were also involved but your nitpicking. In both Germany and Japan the proto-democracy failed and led to an expansionist autocratic state until the US intervened and established democracy that seems to be stable and lasting half a century later.
Posted by: Yank   2003-11-7 8:19:58 PM  

#18  It seems to me that this speech was heavily directed at Foggy Bottom.
Posted by: Dishman   2003-11-7 5:19:15 PM  

#17  And I thought the Arabs believed that democracy was a Jewish plot.
Posted by: Atrus   2003-11-7 4:55:30 PM  

#16  snell

ISTR that for early meiji period Japan had very limited parliamentary influence, more like Kaisers Germany. Real democracy, as in Germany, existed only briefly, in the 20's.

Ive seen it argued that IRaq's monarchy was moving in a constitutional direction in the 1950's before it was overthrown by a military coup in 1958. Not as democratic as Weimar, but a relatively open society.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 4:51:50 PM  

#15  Yank: Germany made an earlier attempt at democracy post WWI (Weimar Republic) that wasn't imposed (except by circumstances). Japan had its Meiji Restoration in the late 1800s that was an early attempt at Japanese democracy.

It'd be easy to argue that the U.S. occupation restored those existing aspects of their society, albeit with different structures.
Posted by: snellenr   2003-11-7 4:31:25 PM  

#14  "... and because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to me the democracies in Germany, Italy and Japan had something to do with American intervention. Panama is a pretty clear case of US intervention leading directly to democracy as well.
Posted by: Yank   2003-11-7 4:08:45 PM  

#13  Jarhead

Of course Gore shouldnt be president cause he won the popular vote - not only would that violate the (yes federalist) constitution, it would be silly, since if the GOP had known those rules going, they could have changed their campaigning patterns to focus more on getting the best popular vote -rather than focus on swing states.

No the reason Gore should be pres is cause he won the ELECTORAL Vote :)

Runs away.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 3:45:55 PM  

#12  Michael Totten on the speech

"Yesterday George W. Bush said this:

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, he’s pitching the Kissinger doctrine over the side. “Stability,” “our bastards,” and the rest of the old right ideology is finished. We cannot and will not liberate every oppressed population at once. But we’ll do what we can when we are able.

It’s ironic that a recently isolationist Republican president has embraced this vision. It’s an old vision and its roots can be found on the left. Paul Berman articulated it best. “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others.”

George W. Bush, to my enduring astonishment, agrees. It’s the only thing that makes the Democrats’ self-destruction bearable."





Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 3:01:49 PM  

#11  LH, also true democracy would've meant to me that Gore wins by popular vote as is the argument made by many Dems. My counter argument is that Fed Republic style we follow justifies his losing even w/the pop vote.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-11-7 2:58:05 PM  

#10  LH, Rep style Democracy yes, I'm w/you on that. "True democracy" always meant to me everyone votes on every decision. I.E. different from Reps voting for their constituents (electorate college included) that was the distinction I'm trying to draw between Fed Repub & True Demo.

Thanx for the input on my other question.
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-11-7 2:55:26 PM  

#9  Jar

thanks for the compliment, but i know far too little about the region to answer your question.
Could be a class difference - probably the entrepreneurship think more than education, since the Egyptian university students tend to be on the extremist side. Or it might be local circumstances - life under a relatively moderate AND pro-western King of Jordan, vs life under either an anti-US regime (Syria) or a pro-US but fairly brutal regime (Saudi, Egypt, Algeria) Or it could be ethnicity - Jordan is half Palestinian, half locals who tend not to like the Pals much. Perhaps he's just a local who dislikes the Pals, and prefers US policy? Perhaps he trades with Israel? Or, better, perhaps hes a Pal disillusioned with Pal leadership. Or perhaps theres more going on that i cant fathom. -
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 2:29:42 PM  

#8  In the Jordanian capital Amman, businessman Khalid Salim said: "I support completely President Bush’s speech concerning democracy in the Middle East and hope that his words will take effect soon."

What Arabs mean by democracy is the fulfilment of their collective wish lists - i.e. the expulsion of Jews from Israel, unlimited immigration for Muslims who want to come to America, etc. (you get the drift).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-11-7 1:43:13 PM  

#7  LH, a mixed reaction I agree. One fact I picked upon and maybe you may see it to:

"businessman Khalid Salim" - with us.

"worker Ali Rida" - skeptical.

I've noted this before in past articles. Could it be that the business folks who may be more highly educated are more for the democracy (& captalist ventures) and cut Bush more slack then those who are farther down the econ-ladder? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or a snob. I'm just wondering if the business execs or the more educated elite (west europe is a different story to me) are seeing something different about us then the less educated "man on the arab street." You know more about the region then I do - what do you think?
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-11-7 1:41:53 PM  

#6  Actually Jarhead, lots of folks across the spectrum dont utilize the text book distinction between "a representative republic" and "direct democracy" in 1789 we were a republic - no monarch, and a variety of checks and balances not only among institutions but among class interests. After the Jacksonian period, with the almost universal adoption of white manhood suffrage, we became effectively a democracy, even if we werent ruled by a gigantic town meeting a al ancient Athens. From at least the mid-19th c on the word "democratic" has been applied primarily to representative democracies. (several of which, like the UK, are nominally monarchies) So the talk of the US as a republic, not a democracy sounds a tad pedantic to some of us. Not saying you shouldnt make that distinction, if its meaningful to you, but not everyone who calls the US a democracy (like Pres. Bush) is either in the loony left or a "schlep"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 1:38:46 PM  

#5  "In the Jordanian capital Amman, businessman Khalid Salim said: "I support completely President Bush’s speech concerning democracy in the Middle East and hope that his words will take effect soon."

But in the Syrian capital Damascus, 37-year-old worker Ali Rida said Bush’s talk of democracy didn’t conceal the true U.S. policy in the region"

IE a mixed reaction - some dont like, but some DO. Thats GOOD. Very GOOD.

And let me give credit where credit is due. I thought it was very good and very necessary. I thank Pres. Bush for making it. I think he may be "getting it"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-7 12:32:04 PM  

#4  ... and because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."

-minus the fact that we're actually a Federalist Republic and not a 'true democracy'. Another small but important factor when talking about our form of gov'ment that the looney left and these schleps need to remember.......
Posted by: Jarhead   2003-11-7 12:28:01 PM  

#3  "and because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."

This is true - if you consider China, Vietnam and Cuba to be true democracies.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-11-7 11:54:34 AM  

#2  "If they want to export democracy through wars, we do not want it," he said. "Let them keep it to themselves."

The only reason that we are now trying to "export" democracy to that region is because we are forced to, not because of some grandiose social experiment to try making their lives better. I'm all for leaving wretched individuals like Ali Rida to stew in their own juices, except that too many people in that part of the world simply can't be trusted to keep their problems and their misery to themselves. And that is where the trouble usually begins.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-11-7 11:16:56 AM  

#1  "and because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."

Guy needs to read his history books. He would realize that our democracy came about thanks, in part, to frogeign intervention.
Posted by: B   2003-11-7 11:01:03 AM  

00:00