Newspapers of the Arab world are sitting up and taking notice of the anti-American activism being displayed by French president Jacques Chirac and other European leaders. In some cases, the Arab press is downright amazed that European leaders are greater defenders of Iraq than Arab ones.
The Arab nationalist newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi printed a recent editorial that wryly observed that while Chirac took a stand against the American position and seeks to prevent an invasion of an Arab state, ?he will not find a single supporter among the Arab leaders...? The reason, according to the al-Quds al-Arabi editor, is that ?Most of them want the war over and done with, and have been colluding with the US administration by granting it bases and facilities on the one hand and prohibiting any popular protests on the other.... They have made up their minds and decided not to cross President George W. Bush in the hope of avoiding his retribution, and being spared from the process of democratic change he has threatened to impose on the region....?
Instead of allowing and supporting massive anti-invasion demonstrations, such as those in the West, ?Arab leaders have restricted their efforts to escalating the psychological war on the Iraqi leadership in order to force it to flee from the confrontation and offer the country on a silver plate to the American invaders, while at the same time conspiring with the US to arrange an internal coup that would have the same effect,? the editorial says. Furthermore, the editor writes, France will not even be able to get the Arab League to agree to its proposal that the League release a decision formally supporting the extension of arms inspections as an alternative to war. Al-Quds al-Arabi remarks that just as the Arabs in Israel have failed to get the Arab League to take any meaningful action against Israel, and just as the Gulf Cooperation Council satisfied itself with ?blaming Iraq and its leadership, while dispatching forces to Kuwait to protect it from Iraqi aggression,? so too will the Arab League maintain its ?total disregard? in the case of Iraq.
The United Arab Emirates newspaper al-Khaleej published an article by a Jordanian columnist, who writes, ?it is vitally important to make the Americans feel that there are serious objections to their plans in the Arab world and that their takeover is not welcome but provokes universal resentment.? However, the Jordanian writer observes, Arab governments ?are not exactly known for their dynamism...? and will not likely take a stand against America; therefore, he calls on those Arab states that are willing to do so to agree on ?serious common policies aimed at recovering their say on matters that have a direct bearing on the region?s fate.? One example of Arab influence-wielding that the al-Khaleej column endorses is Arab recognition of the post-war Iraqi regime. The columnists suggests that America may be deterred by an Arab warning that any future regime in Iraq that is the result of an American invasion would not enjoy the recognition of the Arab world. The Jordanian writer states, ?A political solution has been and remains viable, for Baghdad is in no position to throw down challenges to the US (like North Korea), and a political solution could and should lead to the emergence of a different regime in Baghdad.?
A Beirut newspaper a-Safir editorialized recently that the Arab world will quickly collapse as a result of the occupation of Iraq and the American imposition of a new regional order. ?We will be victims of this war,? the Lebanese editor writes. He observes that the US manipulation of the United Nations and the European Union can teach Arabs to ?expect the worst and get a foretaste of the kind of jungle Washington insists on turning the world into....? The Arab world is expected to emerge ?feebler? and ?more fragmented? than ever, estimates the a-Safir editor. One reason for this, he observes, is ?precisely because it was not party to the pre-war confrontations [with America].?
A columnist in al-Hayat, a Saudi Arabian newspaper, describes the war on Iraq as ?a war we are all certain is coming very soon, even though we don?t really know what its reasons and purposes are.? She candidly writes that the Arabs are ?torn between their hatred of their regimes and their hatred of America?s Middle East policy. Some saw Saddam Hussein, momentarily, as the face of defiance of America?s high handedness and its injustice toward the Arabs in the conflict with Israel. Others see him as the source of the affliction, because of the adventures and wars he waged for leadership. The vast majority blame the other Arab leaders equally for the region?s condition, due to their despotism and deliberate humiliation of their peoples to preserve the regimes. The same majority blame America for its unjust policies and its record of contempt for the Arab individual, who it has constantly sought to sideline so as to control Arab natural resources.?
The al-Hayat column goes on to explain why most Iraqis have no objection to war on Iraq, despite the Westerners marching in the streets against it: ?The oppression of those who live under the Iraq regime, and the discontent of those who cannot see the Arab regimes adopting necessary reforms, has reached the point of despair. And despair has bred acquiescence to anything that might shake the foundations of the Arab world, even a war that was conceived by men famed for their loathing and contempt for the Arab peoples and their total loyalty to Israel, indeed to Sharon-ism.... The US, for them, is the means for demolishing the status quo? It is the ?dynamite?? It is the appropriate temporary ?partner? for the transition, but it is not trusted beyond that, even by this segment of public opinion.?
As for the US, the Saudi columnist writes, ?The war on Iraq is not a war for Iraq, but a war for America?s greatness waged via Iraq, which has provided the administration?s hawks with an opportunity they deem golden. They want a war on Iraq for the sake of a ?doctrine? they formulated years ago, and onto which they recently put George W. Bush?s name. The essence of this doctrine is that everything is permissible in order to preserve America?s pre-eminence? and prevent even friends and allies from daring to rival or share its hegemony...? with the confrontation with France and Germany serving the same purpose.
A Jordanian daily, al-Rai, ran a column questioning the motivations of those states who have decided to support the war against Iraq. ?American, British and Israeli spokespeople have incessantly been claiming that Iraq threatens their security and peace,? the writer says, ?but we never heard any Spanish or Australian official even attempt to echo that fraudulent and mendacious charge. And if the Australian and Spanish stance stems from a commitment to world peace and to opposing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their use to threaten others, why has neither country had a single word to say about the ongoing war of annihilation that the Israel war machine is waging against the Palestinian people?? Not just among the non-Arab states, the article declares, but in the Arab world as well, ?only harm will befall any Arab or Islamic side that contributes to [the impending war], if only by remaining lock-jawed.?
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.
The Arab nationalist newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi printed a recent editorial that wryly observed that while Chirac took a stand against the American position and seeks to prevent an invasion of an Arab state, ?he will not find a single supporter among the Arab leaders...? The reason, according to the al-Quds al-Arabi editor, is that ?Most of them want the war over and done with, and have been colluding with the US administration by granting it bases and facilities on the one hand and prohibiting any popular protests on the other.... They have made up their minds and decided not to cross President George W. Bush in the hope of avoiding his retribution, and being spared from the process of democratic change he has threatened to impose on the region....?
Instead of allowing and supporting massive anti-invasion demonstrations, such as those in the West, ?Arab leaders have restricted their efforts to escalating the psychological war on the Iraqi leadership in order to force it to flee from the confrontation and offer the country on a silver plate to the American invaders, while at the same time conspiring with the US to arrange an internal coup that would have the same effect,? the editorial says. Furthermore, the editor writes, France will not even be able to get the Arab League to agree to its proposal that the League release a decision formally supporting the extension of arms inspections as an alternative to war. Al-Quds al-Arabi remarks that just as the Arabs in Israel have failed to get the Arab League to take any meaningful action against Israel, and just as the Gulf Cooperation Council satisfied itself with ?blaming Iraq and its leadership, while dispatching forces to Kuwait to protect it from Iraqi aggression,? so too will the Arab League maintain its ?total disregard? in the case of Iraq.
The United Arab Emirates newspaper al-Khaleej published an article by a Jordanian columnist, who writes, ?it is vitally important to make the Americans feel that there are serious objections to their plans in the Arab world and that their takeover is not welcome but provokes universal resentment.? However, the Jordanian writer observes, Arab governments ?are not exactly known for their dynamism...? and will not likely take a stand against America; therefore, he calls on those Arab states that are willing to do so to agree on ?serious common policies aimed at recovering their say on matters that have a direct bearing on the region?s fate.? One example of Arab influence-wielding that the al-Khaleej column endorses is Arab recognition of the post-war Iraqi regime. The columnists suggests that America may be deterred by an Arab warning that any future regime in Iraq that is the result of an American invasion would not enjoy the recognition of the Arab world. The Jordanian writer states, ?A political solution has been and remains viable, for Baghdad is in no position to throw down challenges to the US (like North Korea), and a political solution could and should lead to the emergence of a different regime in Baghdad.?
A Beirut newspaper a-Safir editorialized recently that the Arab world will quickly collapse as a result of the occupation of Iraq and the American imposition of a new regional order. ?We will be victims of this war,? the Lebanese editor writes. He observes that the US manipulation of the United Nations and the European Union can teach Arabs to ?expect the worst and get a foretaste of the kind of jungle Washington insists on turning the world into....? The Arab world is expected to emerge ?feebler? and ?more fragmented? than ever, estimates the a-Safir editor. One reason for this, he observes, is ?precisely because it was not party to the pre-war confrontations [with America].?
A columnist in al-Hayat, a Saudi Arabian newspaper, describes the war on Iraq as ?a war we are all certain is coming very soon, even though we don?t really know what its reasons and purposes are.? She candidly writes that the Arabs are ?torn between their hatred of their regimes and their hatred of America?s Middle East policy. Some saw Saddam Hussein, momentarily, as the face of defiance of America?s high handedness and its injustice toward the Arabs in the conflict with Israel. Others see him as the source of the affliction, because of the adventures and wars he waged for leadership. The vast majority blame the other Arab leaders equally for the region?s condition, due to their despotism and deliberate humiliation of their peoples to preserve the regimes. The same majority blame America for its unjust policies and its record of contempt for the Arab individual, who it has constantly sought to sideline so as to control Arab natural resources.?
The al-Hayat column goes on to explain why most Iraqis have no objection to war on Iraq, despite the Westerners marching in the streets against it: ?The oppression of those who live under the Iraq regime, and the discontent of those who cannot see the Arab regimes adopting necessary reforms, has reached the point of despair. And despair has bred acquiescence to anything that might shake the foundations of the Arab world, even a war that was conceived by men famed for their loathing and contempt for the Arab peoples and their total loyalty to Israel, indeed to Sharon-ism.... The US, for them, is the means for demolishing the status quo? It is the ?dynamite?? It is the appropriate temporary ?partner? for the transition, but it is not trusted beyond that, even by this segment of public opinion.?
As for the US, the Saudi columnist writes, ?The war on Iraq is not a war for Iraq, but a war for America?s greatness waged via Iraq, which has provided the administration?s hawks with an opportunity they deem golden. They want a war on Iraq for the sake of a ?doctrine? they formulated years ago, and onto which they recently put George W. Bush?s name. The essence of this doctrine is that everything is permissible in order to preserve America?s pre-eminence? and prevent even friends and allies from daring to rival or share its hegemony...? with the confrontation with France and Germany serving the same purpose.
A Jordanian daily, al-Rai, ran a column questioning the motivations of those states who have decided to support the war against Iraq. ?American, British and Israeli spokespeople have incessantly been claiming that Iraq threatens their security and peace,? the writer says, ?but we never heard any Spanish or Australian official even attempt to echo that fraudulent and mendacious charge. And if the Australian and Spanish stance stems from a commitment to world peace and to opposing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their use to threaten others, why has neither country had a single word to say about the ongoing war of annihilation that the Israel war machine is waging against the Palestinian people?? Not just among the non-Arab states, the article declares, but in the Arab world as well, ?only harm will befall any Arab or Islamic side that contributes to [the impending war], if only by remaining lock-jawed.?
--------------------------------------------------------
Spend Passover with Arutz Sheva at a resort in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or Kfar Pines (near Hadera). Click here for info.