Most Arab understanding of American foreign policy begins and ends with one statement: “Republican or democrat, this election or past elections, what difference does it make? The Arab vote will end up in the garbage, and American foreign policy will always be “pro-Israeli”.
An assessment of cartoons collected from twenty highly reputed newspapers in the region during last year’s presidential elections clearly reveals this theme to be dominant in Arab perceptions towards US foreign policy. No newspaper however, attempts to define “an Arab agenda” that moves beyond hostility towards the state of Israel.
This hostility may stem from various well founded reasons documented in history that include the ongoing raging humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Israel’s lack of adherence to the principles of international humanitarian and human rights law, and disregard for UN Resolutions, as well as disproportionate failed wars - as confirmed by the recent Winograd report - that led to tragic repercussions for innocent Lebanese and Israeli civilians during the war in July 2006.
Yet, Arabs need to move beyond an agenda that highlights the failures of Israel as they perceive them, towards an agenda that promotes human rights, empowers Arab youth, and builds more democratic institutions. These goals ought to form the foundations of any Arab dialogue that will unify Arab countries in the region.
Arabs, in general, fail to acknowledge the hard work, state-of-the-art activism, and colossal funds that are channeled from diverse Jewish sources to maintain the resonance of the “Jewish voice” in the USA.
Many Arabs do not even know the difference between a “Jew”, “Israeli”, and “Extremist”. Whereas Jews can hold any nationality, Israelis hold Israeli citizenship and include some Palestinians, and extremists may be Jews or Israelis and many times represent the voice of the Likud party in Israel as opposed to the more moderate Labor party. Arabs refer to this hardline right-wing political group in Israel and its supporters all over the world as “Zionists”- many times using the term outside its historical context as defined by Jews and Israelis.
“Pro-Israeli” represents different agendas for different groups: Arabs tend to place all Jews, Israelis and Zionists into one category and one that is superficially and simplistically labeled as right wing and pro-military solutions whenever Israeli security is threatened. This stereotype allows Arabs to ignore the diverse agendas promoted by different Jewish lobbies in the US, as well as the complexities and divisions in Israeli society.
At the same time, American and Israeli ignorance of diverse Arab cultures, history, politics, allows them to deal with Arabs or “people of the Middle East” as one package and one that carries “terrorist” connotations if not an explicit “terrorist” label.
These stereotypes act as barriers to effective communications and lost are the most important voices of moderate Arabs and Israelis who are looking for a two state solution and want to live in peace with one another.
A scan of leading Arabic newspapers over the last few months reveals very limited follow up of the US presidential elections. In sharp contrast, Israelis closely follow the race for presidency and are acutely aware that the person who inhabits the White House will influence their future more than any other leader, perhaps more than their own leaders at home.
A leading Israeli newspaper “Haaretz” has initiated a project managed by a panel of experts with the objective of ranking US presidential candidates according to a “Pro-Israeli Factor” on a scale of one to ten, from the worst candidate for Israel to the best one. This is a very superficial project, and judging by the factors scrutinized to rate US presidential candidates, “the pro-Israeli factor” is one that is undoubtedly right wing and pro military solutions, at a time when “pro-Israeli” should mean pro-peace and pro-diplomacy with the Arab world.
Republican Rudy Giuliani had the highest score (8.37) and Democrat Barack Obama had the lowest score (5.0), explaining his popularity between Arab Americans in the USA.
Some analysts argue that Giuliani was forced to withdraw from the elections mainly due to the fact that his 9/11 campaign failed to get traction with ordinary voters, even on the Republican side of the debate, given its strong emphasis on tough security and military measures. This may be interpreted as a good sign that American public opinion is changing, and hard power politics is losing appeal amongst ordinary Americans who have come to see for themselves the adverse results of American foreign policy in the region.
Many Arabs would be surprised to learn that a US presidential candidate with promising potential for winning the US elections is both non white and son of a Muslim who used to live in Indonesia: Barack Hussein Obama is perceived by many as the best candidate for leading change in foreign policy in the Middle East. With a compassion for minorities, an international perspective, sensitivity for health poverty and climate change, Obama appears to be effectively selling his democrat agenda and credentials to Americans, Arabs, and Muslims.
As a Lebanese, it is difficult to ignore Obama’s public statement during the Israeli Lebanese war last July: “I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched.” (August 22, 2006) The disproportionate destructive war waged by Israel on Lebanon last July and one that Lebanon has yet to recover from some eighteen months later, was/is justified by the presidential candidate who is least “pro-Israeli”.
In general, Arab Americans and informed Arabs about US presidential elections, tend to favor the democrats agenda over the “hawkish” republican agenda for the Middle East. In a 3 day meeting sponsored by the Arab American Institute (AAI) in November 2007, 600 Arab Americans gathered to discuss American foreign policy in the Middle East. All presidential candidates were asked by AAI to speak or send representatives to discuss their agenda for the region. On the republican side, only one candidate sent his representative, whereas the democratic candidates Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all delivered their messages in person at the AAI sponsored conference in Michigan.
Although Obama explicitly stated the need for a two state solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, Clinton remained vague and diplomatic. She earned 7.62 out of ten for her Pro-Israeli position in Haaretz and was quoted saying: “The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not - dare not - waver from this commitment."
Arab audiences may not have heard of other US candidates but the glamour and appeal of Lady Clinton (wife of former president Clinton) is not easily overlooked. Arabs need to move beyond superficial images, and invest time in understanding the political agenda that presidential candidates represent for the Middle East.
A close scrutiny of the democrat agenda reveals vagueness about democracy issues for the Middle East. Indeed maintaining the image of democracy while violating its genuine principles has consumed the efforts of successive American administrations, and the Bush administration is no exception.
Arabs need to know that according to recent polls (Gallup), 80% of Americans want to see a change in American foreign policy. In general, Arabs fail to differentiate between the American people and the American administration; by the same token, if the Americans do not take the time to think beyond their borders and accept to elect officials who are not clear about a foreign policy agenda for the Middle East, they have themselves to partially blame for tragic events like September 11.
The American public needs to pressure US presidential candidates to bring fresh ideas to the table. Rarely would you hear a presidential candidate booed by an audience as they tend to adhere to the polls and many times override their personal beliefs in return for generating applause.
To foster a two way dialogue with the Arab world, and generate Arab interest in US presidential elections, US public opinion needs to exert pressure on presidential candidates to make sure that they move beyond generating applause towards developing and effectively communicating an agenda that sheds light on key issues for peace and security in the Middle East.
These issues must include: recovery plans for the Iraqi people and an end for the war in Iraq; a strategy for diplomatic negotiations with Syria and Iran; a feasible roadmap that prevents the Palestinian-Israeli crisis from grinding to a destructive halt; and a vision for empowering Arab youth to lobby for reform amongst other issues.
The American administration does a fabulous job of “interfering” in the wrong places, and turns its back on Arabs where its resources are most needed. Arab youth many times watch in despair as the American administration establishes dialogue and extends support to officials and governments who have suffocated the voice of a youth hungry for reform, and broken the will of the moderate and secular factions of Arab society.
It is time for the American administration to hear “The Arab voice” in the streets and universities in the Arab world, not the offices of high ranking officials.
As Americans stand in long queues to order fast takeaway food in one of the most consumerist societies in the world, a real opportunity to lobby for a real change in American foreign policy by holding presidential candidates accountable for a specific agenda is lost.
At the same time the Israelis do not feel any pressure to change their policy, especially given the remarkable growth and stability that Israel achieved this year, and the high stakes that may be involved for Israeli security given a change of direction.
In contrast, Arab youth line up along embassy corridors desperate to immigrate from seemingly endless misery and despair, and the only time “the Arab voice” is really heard is when the American administration and Western world adopts strict immigration laws to prohibit them from securing a decent living abroad.
Arabs, Israelis, and Americans need to start listening and talking in a language that overcomes biases and stereotypes. The “Arab voice” and the “Jewish voice” represent two sides of the same coin, and one that must ultimately bridge social and economic divides and inequalities, protect human dignity and life, give hope to the youth, and build more stable democratic institutions in the Middle East.
The US administration doesn’t have to an honest or impartial broker, but it needs to be an effective intermediary between Arabs and Israelis. The new US Administration needs to sell “hope” not American foreign policy to people in the Middle East.
Rima Merhi is a research fellow at the Middle East Institute working with Dr. Allen Keiswetter (ex-advisor to US Mission on Middle East issues before Security Council and General Assembly) and independent researcher at the Library of Congress working on Arab media outreach to American public opinion. Freelance journalist with publications in the Washington Post, Independent, Daily Star, Middle East Institute, Middle East Online, Al Jazeera magazine, Al Arabiya, BBC and others.
Operation Breakfast Redux