What We Are Dealing With, Part 10

This series has been primarily dedicated to European perspectives on the US and US policy. More specifically, I've focused a lot on Germany's orientation. But this series was never meant to be so uni-dimensional. The intent was always to share international views and as we move forward I will try to diversify the portfolio.

Tonight's entry brings us some insights from arguably the world's most influential Arabic language newspaper, Britain's Al-Sharq al-Awsat. Mamoun Fandy, a senior fellow at the Baker Institute (yes, the James A. Baker, III Institute at Rice University), who has been widely published here in the US and has been seen on a good many news programs, writes of the Katrina aftermath

John Stewart, an American commentator, made a statement loaded with irony, he said that Hurricane Katrina “requires a person to move far from the incident to form an objective view and I believe that President Bush’s view is the most objective since he was so far removed from the incident”. It is comments such as this that have been a main feature of American media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated three states the size of the United Kingdom.

With all due respect, Mr. Fandy, but when did John Stewart make the transition from comedian to commentator? Is the joke of The Daily Show lost on you?

Now don't get me wrong. I love Stewart and I love The Daily Show. It's great political satire. Similarly, I have great respect for Fandy. He's a very astute political observer. But when a Middle Eastern PhD living in this country reports back to the Arabic-speaking world that a comedian / satirist is a "commentator," well it just shows you what we are dealing with.

Oh but wait, there's more!

Hence, Hurricane Katrina will at least influence the Middle East situation as much as Monica Lewinsky influenced the performance of the Clinton administration. Clinton did not have enough American support to enable him to pressure Ehud Barak; this resulted in him placing more pressure on the Palestinians, until they rejected his offer. He then absolved himself of responsibility by saying that Arafat rejected the generous offer. The truth was that Clinton did not have sufficient political credit to allow him to propose such a huge initiative at that time. Therefore, the question remains; will Katrina leave President Bush with some political credit that will allow him to achieve the dream of the two countries? I have deep doubts about that.

Dr. Fandy...please. You are comparing devastation, hundreds of deaths and years of reconstruction with the stain on a blue dress? And Dr. Fandy, to what extent did or would American public opinion have to do with Clinton's ability to negotiate Middle East peace? Are you really suggesting that the reason negotiations failed was that the American public was yapping at Clinton's heels on the subject? My guess is that most Americans could care less how it is arrived at, only that peace is realized. And Dr. Fandy, please, please, please explain to me how and why the whole shebang is dependent upon American involvement? I thought that the Arab objective was to get the Americans out of Middle Eastern affairs. Now you are suggesting that the US is essential to the resolution of the conflict. Now which is it? Or do I have it all wrong?

Dr. Fandy, of course feels quite comfortable in making such mindless commentary in Arabic-language publications, but I have a feeling he sings a different tune in those in which he thinks his hosts in America might actually read his analysis. Then again, this duplicity is very common in our dealings with the Middle East. We hear one thing said to our face by Middle Eastern leaders, bureaucrats and academics and read quite another espoused to the domestic audiences back home. Be sure none of that duplicity has anything to do with galvanizing public support for the powers that be. And we wonder why they hate us.

And thus, we come to the close of another chapter of "What we are dealing with..."