I have seen what’s on the ground. Perhaps I contribute to something less propagandistic.
Some Arabs, above all Palestinians for the obvious reasons.
And it cuts the other way. I’ve personally met plenty of Israeli Jews who utterly dehumanize the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically, to the point of making statements that they aren’t “like us” in terms of suffering and the like.
I’ve also met folks who would rather find a way to ressolve all this. I would hesitate to put numbers on this, but I would say that those utterly possessed by hatred without limits are a minority. But they are an active minority.
Some, some Arab governments. Others like Jordan and Egypt desperately want to cool everything off. Even opposition leaders in Egypt – I know some personally mind you – don’t want war. This kind of claim is highly distortive of the situation.
It’s painting with broad brushes and sweeping generalizations about whole peoples which feed this nonesense at one level, at another there are fundamental conflicts of interest which while they may be ressolvable, are inherently difficult.
As you know, I read the Arabic press. Do you? I don’t think so. Well, let me take issue with your characterization. Enormous? Well, there is a lot of legitimate outrage about Israeli actions which however founded or not, certainly have garnered world-wide condemnation. You may not like this, but that’s the case. There is of course also considerable one-sidedness, a focus on Palestinian suffering and viewpoints to the general exclusion of Israeli ones. And Arab writing, in all areas most of the time, tends to love over-heated idioms. Bad habit, gets in the way of clear analysis, but… I might add the Israeli press I have read in translation seems to suffer quite a bit from the same disease, although generally the quality of anlaysis, however one sided, is a bit higher.
So, anger at Israeli actions, yes enormous. Criticisms of Israeli actions -factual ones- a lot. Wild-assed distortions which I would call propaganda, pretty wide spread in the opposition press, but not that bad in the official press (speaking of the international and Egyptian papers) although present.
For Syria, yes. But once again, this is not the case for Jordan, Egypt – I don’t read Lebanese papers so I can’t comment on that, but in general they’re the buttboys of Syria. However one notes that Lebanese government is desperately trying to stay out of this. Overall, with the exception of Shebaa’ Farms, all is pretty quiet. I might add that while Egypt and Jordan (nor Lebanon) are not paradises of democracy, they aren’t tyrannical either by an ordinary sense of the word. Nor are they attempting to control their populaces through
Scapegoating is certainly a factor, but neither are the neighbors excepting Syria using this to control their population. Quite the opposite. Of course in re Syria, Hanan Ashrawi said on al-Jazeera something along the lines of them being willing to fight to the last dead Palestinian. Clever phrase, lifted from as-Sadat’s.
Yes, and they play the game themselves.
I am led to remark on the discourse presently around the publication of the memoirs of a certain General Paul Aussaresses who served in Algeria in the war for independence describing his service – then as a Commandant-- as a “nettoyeur” (cleaner) of ‘terrorists’. He was portrayed, indirectly, in the film Battle of Algiers. Some mention was made in an article on the memiors in regards to how France, in the face of the uprising, adopted the same techniques of suppression which the French pubic and government had denounced as barbaric during the occupation of France. It should be some basis for reflection on the problematics of morality in such cases.
He turned down a deal that did not address settlements in full and did not address in a satisfactory way Jerusalem. If he had signed it, he would have lost all credibility.
Why? The deal did not reach what he needed to sell the end game to his people. This makes as much a sense as saying that Israeli refusal to utterly end settlements, continued expropriation of lands, refusal to follow time-tables etc. from Oslo and Madrid indicates the whole peace process was a sham. Or maybe it is a genuine case of conflicts of interests not yet being ressolved. Or perhaps more likely a mixture of bad faith from both sides with conflicts of interest with too much pressure in terms of an American president trying to achieve something based on external American electoral concerns.
Negotiations are a two way street. It usually is only possible to understand them by looking at the othersides desires also.
Sadat. King of Jordan died peacefully of cancer. Far more of Arafat’s folks have been assasinated by Mossad than Hamas. There is no call to exagerate the problems, which while real were not insurmountable.
]
Yeah, riiiiiiiight. Things have gotten better since Bush pulled back, eh?
Backing down? Bloody hell it’s feeding the militants, Palestinian and otherwise. (You can use the word no? Or are we playing the childish game the Arab press used to do in re Israel and the Zionest Entity phrase.) What I have observed in the past seven months is the slow intrusion of the logic of war into the public opinion. I have seen people go from gruding, cold acceptance of Israeli contacts – but genuine to my reading – to warlike attitudes. Ordinary folks, not the militants. If you think this is helpful you’re mad. Or you’re Sharon, who I think wants war.
True.
disclaimer: I live and work in the Middle East and good give a rat’s ass about both sides so long as I can get me work done.
However, is peace possible. Yes, it absolutely is. Is it likely, no.