While top Israeli and Palestinian officials discussed security at a Middle East forum Saturday, an American senator advised Arab leaders to focus on injustices in their own countries and reminded them that U.S. policy is security for Israel first and justice for Palestinians “if possible.”
“Obviously one of the greatest commitments that we have is to the Jewish people and the state of Israel, to try and manage the difficult process of the peace there and securing that nation, and doing so in a way that, if possible, is just to the Palestinians,” Smith told a panel that included Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, top officials from Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as academics from Iran and Turkey. link
Washington has vowed to stamp out anti-American sentiment, and when proven performers like Gordon Smith team up with America’s gracious and lovely First Lady, who travelled personally to the Middle East to inform them that they were witnessing a Springtime of Hope, it’s a slam dunk!
While there will no doubt be some who would take Senator Smith to task for his reference to justice for Palestinians, and accuse him of pandering and attempting to appease apologists for people who want to kill Americans, Smith’s expert diplomacy is just what is needed to get America’s message across to anyone in the region who may have any doubts about US Resolve.
like the re-election of George W. Bush was the biggest catastrophe for this nation since the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan forced us to lose a half a million souls.
I remember the hopefulness I felt when Clinton was pushing the Camp David talks. There was a moment when I allowed myself to believe that the talks would result in a lasting settlement.
I wish that we could turn back the clock and make the compromises and concessions that would have allowed a lasting agreement.
Now, instead of being seen as a superpower interested in resolving conflicts, in Ireland, in Israel, in Kashmir…
…we are seen as warmongers with no respect for Islam.
in the way US policies are viewed has taken place in the minds of a small minority of Americans.
From my personal observation, the last few years have definitely seen an increase on the part of some Americans in terms of both awareness of how the US is viewed in the Majority World, and even some misgivings on the part of those same Americans regarding their own feelings toward US policies, as they learn more about them, and the history…
although I understand your point.
The way America is viewed has definitely changed quite a lot since Clinton left office. And the way Americans are treated, too.
But I think it dates more to the 911 events, and the aftermath, than the 2000 election.
It was definitely safer to go to the mall wearing eastern dress in August of 2001, and no one is going to tell you that the US taxpayers have not had to up the payments to keep a clampdown on the populations in client states since the first bombs fell on Afghanistan, but I would be skeptical of regarding the Clinton years (or any other years) as some kind of Golden Age where America was loved throughout the Majority World.
Again, my personal observation only, but it seems to me that the most dramatic intensification has come from opinions of people in Europe toward the US.
The demonstrations in the Middle East, especially those in or near atrocity theatres may be larger and louder than they were in the 90s but remember these are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of victims of previous helpings of the same basic policy, and everyone’s grandchildren and great grandchildren seem to do everything a little larger and louder, regardless of where we live or what our politics are 🙂
I think polling numbers are available that undermine your central point.
I think the US probably was more popular under Clinton than at any time since Vietnam and the 1973 war.
Partly this was the result of the collapse of communism. Some of it was the personal magnetism of Clinton. And some of it was probably undeserved.
Nonetheless, Bush’s policies represent a fundamental change in American relationships, even if global big-footing has been a consistent annoyance for decades.
We Who Were Not Polled. Even polls in the US don’t seem to me to be reflective of the “mood and feel” of the street, and the US is a culture where polls are a familiar thing and have a long history.
People are used to being called up and stopped in malls and asked their opinions on everything from Acme’s Fine Food Flakes to the latest crime against humanity, and I believe that those polls can offer some insight into the opinions of people who happened to be at the mall, or at home and answering their phone, and willing to talk to strangers.
Outside the US, it gets trickier. If those in the US tend to be the more affluent demographics, that effect may be intensified in some other countries, and especially in client states, asking even affluent and educated people what they think of the local puppet sheik, or the US, may not produce figures that bear the desired relationship to the pollees opinion, nor be reflective of the individual who scrubbed.
Whether in or outside of the US, though, in my opinion, the population sector most likely to figure in either street demonstrations or the eventual more “robust” activities, with the notable exception of college students, are not likely to come from the mall and home by the phone stranger-friendly bunch.
as long as polling is done at all, we can judge differences over time.
Even a bad poll will tell us something if the methodology is consistent over time.
Therefore, a poll that shows Moroccans had 50% good feelings toward the United States in 1995 and 3% good feelings towards the Unites States in 2004, would reflect an erosion of good feelings toward the United States.
This is true even if neither number is remotely accurate.
can disagree with either of us that whatever goodwill the US had in any region has been effectively squandered by now.
A couple of ironies: immediately after the 911 events, people really felt sorry for the US. From different perspectives, granted, but still.
The other irony, I remember some quite lively debate before the 2000 “election,” people, especially in the ME, who favored Bush because they thought he would be more pro-Palestinian. They simply did not believe it if you told them that no, he will bring his daddy’s war machine and invade countries.
this? And if so (or now that you have) can you give your opinion on it? It’s certainly new to me, and I found it very interesting, especially as there has been very little or no mention of it even with all the talk about China lately.
This guy sees it as a hopeful development, as it gives the Palestinians a big friend in the region. Sounds hopeful to me too, the way he puts it, but I’d like your take on it, if you feel like it.
By the way, AIPAC or whatever the initials are, are holding their lobbying meeting with DC politicians (Republican and Democrat) this weekend, apparently.
and conduct a proxy Battle of the Sugar Daddies in the Levant, I would not attach a lot of significance to it.
I had actually seen it, and filed it away with the “US Warns China on Currency” story.
While China could benefit from escalating conflict in the region just as the US is doing, and I don’t doubt there are many in Beijing’s “defense industry” who would like to do just that, China does not need to play proxy war in the Levant or anywhere else, even Uzbekistan (although that bears watching, since if the US decides on an Uzbek puppet change, that could compete, although very slightly, with cheap Chinese labor), if China really wants to make things interesting all they have to do is call in their debt. Which might happen, and might not.
I don’t think even Chinese economists agree on which would be more profitable at the moment. Certainly events in Central Asia as well as the Middle East will enter into the discussion, but my hunch is that Beijing will wait until the US begins its “liberation” of Iran and Syria before hauling abacus. 😉
I couldn’t quite see what benefit it would be to them to get involved in the region, but thought it might be a hopeful developement, the way the guy put it… with the Palestinians having someone in their corner in the UN and stuff. What you are saying does make more sense though.
There are just way too many countries playing too many games with people’s lives.