Comments (15)

gzbarth wrote: " Nobody "has been raped, deprived of its homeland, forced (to this very day) to live in camps for generations, driven to flee to neighboring countries." Arab countries invaded Israel, lost one war after another and prefer to keep millions of "Palestinians" in camps instead of doing what Israel has done with about 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries. One more question: can you name a country which lost one war after another without territorial consequences? Israel was a Jewish homeland for thousands of years and the "Palestinians" are the newcomers from other Arab countries, not the Jews."

Chances are you are wasting your time, gzbarth. Most readers here are familiar with historical revisionism.

We all know that we were the victors, in WWII, and that what happened on the Eastern Front, with its more than 20 million Soviet victims fighting and prevailing against 75% of coalesced Nazi and Fascist enemy forces, all the way to Berlin, was only a side show. All of us also know that we won the Vietnam War, that we have brought democracy to Afghanistan and that our civilizing mission has long been accomplished, in Iraq. In addition, it is clear to all of us that our presence in those countries never had anything to do with oil and natural gas, and that we never torture. Turning to the future, we all agree we have now reached the end of history, as per Fukuyama, who wrote eloquently: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” Western eschatology leaves no doubt in our minds that we are the universe’s know all and be all.

You therefore need not worry: we got the message and everybody is fully aware, more particularly on this tribune, of your very own brand of historical revisionism. It has been repeated and read here ad nauseam.

It is unfortunate, of course, that there still remain a few people, who would rather trust what they see with their own eyes and adopt the community of nations’ interpretation of Middle Eastern history, as it is to be found in the UN’s abundant documentation, much of which can be obtained for free. That of course complicates matters somewhat. Nothing to worry unduly about, though. I am sure you will agree, the UN being “irrelevant”, it should simply be “disbanded” and all that documentation destroyed once and for all. How wrong was poet Olga Bergolts, was she not, when she wrote: “Nobody is forgotten, nothing is forgotten." (Piskarevskoe Cemetery, Leningrad)

The Arab failure to distinguish Obama and McCain to me shows two points:

first, while the USA clearly did not bother trying to understand Iraqi society before the war, it also appears that many Arab societies do not really understand the USA or its deeply divided politics.

Second, while I strongly disagree with many of Bush's policy decisions, and I opposed the invasion of Iraq, there also seems to be a tendency in Arab countries to blame the USA for all Arab problems. Regardless of the merits of these complaints, this kind of blame is not a constructive response that will actually solve the underlying problems.

Very interesting piece and well written summary.

Living in the middle east, i've noticed the trendiness with which people throw around anti-american comments. yet, 10 out of 10 would move to the US if they could. Polls do not always capture true feelings

Cynicism prompted by American foreign policy seems to be behind Middle Eastern attitudes towards the
presidential hopefuls, but failing to distinguish between the two and what they offer smacks of ignorance. Obama surely represents the better option for those anxious for resolution in the Arab/Israeli conflict. He has berated the current Administration for its "neglect" in failing to broker peace, has empathised with the Palestinian plight - "nobody suffers more than the Palestine people" - and has offered measured advice: " Israel must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart". This despite the need to win Jewish votes and finance in the coming election. McCain clearly represents the more traditional and conservative view, regarding America and Israel as equal partners who must "always stand together". He speaks of the hypocrisy of Arab leaders whom he claims know how peace can be achieved but "serve only to perpetuate the conflict". In both content and inflamatory tone, his message indicates no shift in foreign policy. Informed Middle Eastern opinion must surely recognise the potential of a Democratic victory.

@ Jim: Nobody "has been raped, deprived of its homeland, forced (to this very day) to live in camps for generations, driven to flee to neighboring countries." Arab countries invaded
Israel, lost one war after another and prefer to
keep millions of "Palestinians" in camps instead of doing what Israel has done with about 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries. One more question: can you name a country which lost one war after another without territorial consequences ?Israel was a Jewish homeland for thousands of yearsand the "Palestinians" are the newcomers from otherArab countries, not the Jews.

ALL U. S. presidents should be sure to be an honest broker re Israel and Palestinians.

Palestinians should be allowed to return to he home of their ancestors OR compensated for the property.

Jerusalem should be divided...that is only fair.

The Old City should be International with peacekeepers there to be sure it remains International.

As with any other real estate, the principle of a willing SELLER and willing BUYER should determine ownership.

ALL occupied territory must revert to the Green Line. Again, that is fair.

Did the U. N. and the U.S. actually think the partition was ethical or humane? How could anyone expect the Palestians or others in the
Middle East to welcome invaders/occupiers of Paletinian land?

And how could anyone expect neighboring states to welcome the taking of water from them? Absurd.

We Americans must be neutral. Sure, Israel had listening posts during the Cold War. But, should we sell our soul for it? NO.

I hope Obama will be an active listener to concers about the out-of-balance we have demonstrated in the Middle East. And get us out of Iraq. We did not have the right to invade and occupy Iraq. It was/is shameful.

This sobering and enlightening summary affirms the concerns many Americans have over our failed Mideast foreign policy.

With the presnt rethoric in electioneering, it would be a fool Arab to prefer one to the other.

It is to be hoped that the elected President would not follow the electioneering nonsense. Now is the time to win voters, by pandering to them, After the election the economic chips of the Bush mismanagement's results will force whoever is President to act in the interest of USA [not Israel, not Arabs, nor Russians nor EU, nor China,] except in a manner to defend the USA $. Any foolish moves by either Bush or the New President, might have the unexpected corralery that the USA fiat Currency would collapse, with the most dire consequences to the USA [or the world if the maddened President starts WWIII].

Good article. It wasn't just where Obama made the statement about Jerusalem, it's where he said it- in front of AIPAC. AIPAC is an organization that has been at the forefront of preventing meaningful compromises over land and water resources between the Palestinians, the Syrians, and the Israelis. AIPAC should be on a list of proscribed organizations, along with al Qaeda and Hamas, in so far as I'm concerned. President Carter said it best- Israel can have peace, or else apartheid. I'm just sorry that most Americans are too bigoted or ignorant to know what is really going on in the Middle East. I'm not letting the Palestinians off the hook either. Their relentless antagonism to the UN partition of Palestine from day one has earned them the profound distrust of the Israeli public. It shouldn't be too much of a surpise that now that most Arabs are willing to accept an Israeli state, that most Israelis seem reluctant to accept a Palestinian state. That's where the US could help as an honest broker, to help establish trust and back up a peace deal. But we invaded the wrong country. We should have invaded Israel and imposed a settlement along the Green line with Jerusalem as an international city shared by all.

yehadut: "Why is the middle east obsessed with Israel?"

Nobody is obsessed with Israel. People throughout the world are concerned, rather, with the fate of the Palestinians.

Here is a people that, through no fault of its own and with the help of the West, has been raped, deprived of its homeland, forced (to this very day) to live in camps for generations, driven to flee to neighbouring countries.

Here is an oppressed people living under occupation, whose children are being murdered on a daily basis in view of the whole world, whose houses are being destroyed daily while the world watches on without moving a finger.

Here is a people that remains a true victim of this world's hegemon and of a "tiny country", against the will of the community of nations, after decades of abuse of its human rights, in total disregard of international law.

Does one need to complete any further one's answer to your question? Please advise. I am confident many people here can oblige.

yehadut:
"Why is the middle east obsessed with Israel?"

Because Europeans planted the last settler colony in an Arab land against the opposition of the Arab residents and every country in the region? Because the US continues to subsidize the state of Israel despite its occupation of Palestinian lands? Because it is an issue of identity and pride?

I suspect there is also a bit of jealousy over the dynamic economy and political freedoms at work also.

Resolve the Palestinian issue, however, and I suspect many of the Arab governments and people would be ready to move on, as Israel has been a faite accompli for the entire lives of 90% of the people.

Why is the middle east obsessed with Israel? It's only one issue, and a tiny country at that. What about Sudan? Afghanistan? Do people not suffer under oppressive rule in Saudi Arabia? It's crazy, how that one issue is exaggerated in the Middle East.

Palestine being the basic criterion: "None of the above."

Regardless of the next leader of America I would imagine that the damage has already done and the American brand is severely tarnished. The next American leader could be appointed by the people of Jordan and I am sure a high percentage would still hold negative opinion of American policy and government personnel.

Any actions by the next American president will take a long time to fundamentally change policy made under previous leadership.

Turks must not comment here since they are Europeans and not Middle Easterners..........