Pakistian, Palestine and Israel

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A few hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, I happened to see an interview with a group of Pakistani university students who were part of a stunned mass of grieving people on the streets of Karachi. They all looked and sounded secular, educated and western. The reporter asked them about Bhutto's death, prospects for democracy in Pakistan, and what they thought about the United States.

They had varying opinions, arguing among themselves and cutting each other off until one young woman brought up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Of course," she said, "we all feel such rage against the United States because of what is going on in Gaza. This is something all Pakistanis feel." The others nodded vigorously in agreement.

There it was. Take pretty much any group of Muslims—Arabs, Iranians, South or East Asians, whatever—and the one subject on which there is near universal agreement is the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

In the United States, little attention is paid to news footage of Palestinian funerals in Gaza or settler brutality in Hebron. But in the Muslim world, these are huge stories, in part because it is the only issue about which there is a clear consensus. It’s no different than the Israeli media covering outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence somewhere in the Diaspora—equal parts empathy, solidarity, and fury at the perpetrators and their enablers.

From Egypt and Jordan all the way to Indonesia and Malaysia, American interests are injured by the perception that the United States is responsible for Palestinian suffering. Not long ago viewed as aspiring honest brokers, we are now seen as the one nation in the world that could help end the occupation of the West Bank and the blockading of Gaza, and isn’t even trying."

more

[oberliner]

1. What about the Iraqis?

Strange to me is the notion that the rage directed at the United States is a result of what is going on in Gaza as opposed to what is going on in Iraq where about ten times as many Muslim civilians have been killed as a result of the invasion US-led forces in six years than the total number of Palestinians who have been killed since the beginning of the first intifada twenty years ago.

[bemildred]

2. Oh, I would wager they mostly agree about Iraq too.

I expect the OP is indulging in a bit of hyperbole in stating that I/P is the "one subject" that everyone agrees on. But then hyperbole rules in discussions of I/P.

[oberliner]

3. What about the Muslim civilians killed by their own government?

It definitely seems to serve the interest of the Pakistani ruling elite to have the population's rage focussed on the plight of the Palestinians as opposed to the plight of the people in, say, Waziristan, whose deaths the Pakistani military is directly responsible for.

It certainly makes sense for the government-run news agencies in Pakistan to ensure that events in Gaza are "huge news stories" while the brutality of their own regime is downplayed. One wonders if this is not a strategic attempt to deflect any anger and resentment that could be directed the government's way.

Here's a recent story from Al-Jazeera (one wonders how this was spun in Pakistan itself):

Civilians killed in Pakistan battle

Dozens of civilians, including women and children, have been killed as Pakistani military jets targeted the positions of tribal fighters in North Waziristan, residents say.

A military spokesman said that "militant hideouts" were targeted in Tuesday's air raids but local residents said a market had been hit killing dozens of people.

At least 250 people, including 47 soldiers, have died in four days of fighting in the tribal region.

On Wednesday, thousands of tribesmen gathered in the village of Epi to bury 50 people killed when about one dozen explosions destroyed shops and homes, residents said.

Abdul Sattar, a grocery shop owner, told the Associated Press news agency earlier that he had counted more than 60 dead and 150 injured after the bombings.

"Some did not have heads, hands or legs," Sattar said.

Residents of the village, about 4km from the town of Mir Ali where the fighting has been centred, said they were continuing to pull bodies from the rubble.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EB3E20EC-5619-4A0E-B592-0CBCFA263126.htm

[bemildred]

4. Indeed, what about that?

All I could say is that doesn't seem to be what the OP is about. It is certainly a worthy subject, but you can't talk about everything at once or you just get in a muddle. It does seem to be true these days that a lot of Pakistanis are mad at their government, but that's another subject which has little to do with the upcoming Bushite "peace mission"

[oberliner]

5. I think that the powers that be in Pakistan (and elsewhere) are attempting to manipulate the people

The OP (specifically the excerpted portion) draws attention to the fact that the I/P conflict is given a huge amount of coverage in the media of these countries and that this coverage has resulted in an increasing amount of resentment towards the United States.

The remainder of the article talks about the "Bushite peace mission", but the portion of the article that the poster chose to excerpt highlights the "rage" that is felt towards the US in many majority-Muslim countries because of the fact that the local populations there feel a sense of connectedness to the Palestinians whose suffering is broadcast to them with great frequency.

My point on that subject (which is essentially all the excerpt itself addresses) is that this may be a situation that is created and/or fomented by the rulers of these countries in order to redirect focus away from the suffering they themselves are inflicting on their own people.

I think this is pertinent to understanding the challenges that will always be facing the United States as it tries to negotiate its way through its various alliances with some unsavory leaders of some of these countries.

[bemildred]

6. It's the first five paragraphs. (one too many actually.)

One ought not assume it was picked to make a point different from the point of the OP itself.

The piece itself is about Bush's failures in handling of I/P, as seen by the writer, or so it seemed to me, and how that affects his dealings with the muslim world. I have no doubt that various "leaders" in the Muslim world are happy to have the I/P distraction, just like Bush likes to have 9/11 and OBL to talk about when the conversation gets awkward, and Olmert likes to bring up the Kassams when somebody brings up subjects he would prefer to have go away. But that is neither here nor there as far as what the OP is about. It was not included as a distraction but as explanatory background, or that's how it looks to me.

I don't think what ordinary Pakistanis think about I/P matters much, since there is little they can do about it. But it matters a good deal to Bush since he needs cooperation from the muslim world with regard to issues that have little to do with I/P, and he has little credibility in the muslim world because of the way he has failed to follow through on what he has said about I/P. It may be somewhat contrived, as you say, but pointing that out won't get Bush what he wants.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. that is a valid point..but the fact still remains that throughout the Arab and Islamic world

there is very real and very genuine sympathy for the Palestinian cause on the street level and among ordinary people at all strata of the societies.

Just last week I happened to go to my dentist who is a Palestinian. In a conversation afterwords, I mentioned how many Israelis and their supporters always bring up the point that even if it is true that Israel mistreats the Palestinians many Arab governments do the same and are sometimes even worse. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "well that's true. They are right."

Still nonetheless throughout the Arab and Islamic world there is and has been for a very long time a sense of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle at the street level. And their media does cover Palestinian suffering as much as the American media ignores or understates it. Not all political conviction anywhere in the world and in any culture on any issue is purely even handed. Why do Americans care deeply about certain issues and ignore others? This is part and parcel of the human condition everywhere and in all cultures.

But one thing is for absolute certainty..until there is a resolution to this conflict in a way that is at least seen as minimally acceptable...the Israel/Palestine issue will continue to be an instrument of repressive governments to manipulate. Just as the American government in different ways uses different issues to manipulate. And religious, nationalist and ideological extremist will have fuel to throw on the fire and attract new devotees. And as long as America acts in a way that no reasonable person can call an honest broker..anti-Americanism will have a very strong weapon in their ideological warfare.

[msmcghee]

8. Douglas says . .

. . "That is a valid point..but the fact still remains that throughout the Arab and Islamic world there is very real and very genuine sympathy for the Palestinian cause on the street level and among ordinary people at all strata of the societies."

That must be why they keep them in refugee camps and don't allow them to assimilate, get jobs or an education or become actual citizens in the Arab states they remain in after several generations now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. Palestinians complain very bitterly about that and consider it hypocritical too...n/t

[Vegasaurus]

12. The Palestinians are the scapegoats for the Arab world

The Arab regimes use the I/P conflict as a way to foment anger towards the US and Israel. But the Arab states don't care about the Palestinians, only the "cause" of "justice", etc., even when their own behavior is among the most unjust.

[bemildred]

9. A hostile president

George Bush is coming to Israel this week. He will take pleasure in his visit. One can assume that there are few prime ministers with a giant photo of themselves with the U.S. president hanging on the wall in their home, as our Ehud Olmert boasted last week that he does, to his exalted guest, the comic Eli Yatzpan. There are also few other countries where the lame duck from Washington would not be greeted with mass demonstrations; instead, Israel is making great efforts to welcome him graciously. The man who has wreaked such ruin upon the world, upon his country, and upon us is such a welcome guest only in Israel.

A man is coming to Israel this week who has left a trail of killing, destruction and global hatred. Never has the U.S. been so despised as during Bush's seven years in office, which abruptly brought his county back to the not-so-merry days of Vietnam.

He led the U.S., and the free world in its wake, into two brutal and completely futile wars of conquest, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. He sowed mass killing in these two wretched countries under the false pretext of a battle against global terror. But the world after these two wars is not a better world or a safer one. And these two wounded countries feel no gratitude toward the superpower that ostensibly came to emancipate them from their regimes of terror.

There was no connection between the attack on the Twin Towers and Iraq. Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists came from, could have been a more appropriate target but it remained an ally of the U.S. despite its despotic regime. The war in Iraq, the rationale for which - the presence of weapons of mass destruction - was revealed to be false, was an atrocious, futile war that is far from being over, even if its daily toll of killing has declined from 100 to 50.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941823.html

[bemildred]

10. The U.S. president / A friend to Olmert indeed

U.S. President George Bush is considered the most pro-Israeli president of all time, and his support for the Jewish state has often drawn criticism from within the U.S. and abroad. But until now, he has remained a distant friend: In his seven years' tenure he never tried to address the Israeli public and win their admiration. Unlike his predecessor Bill Clinton who came to Israel four times during his presidency, Bush was here just once, when he was governor of Texas two years before he was elected president. In addition, press conferences with visiting Israeli prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ariel Sharon, were kept short, and he does not count any Israelis among his inner circle of friends.

Ahead of his visit, Bush gave two interviews to the Israeli press, to Yedioth Ahronoth's Nahum Barnea and Shimon Schiffer and Yonit Levy of Channel Two. Choosing the most popular television station and most widely-read newspaper shows the U.S. administration wants to reach the largest target audience. In the interviews, Bush's main message addressed Israeli politics. "I trust him," he said of Olmert. "He's a man of vision and I believe and like him, and I think he's a strong man."

Few Israelis will say such things of Olmert. Bush himself claims to be briefed on the goings-on of Israeli politics. Therefore, one can surmise his words were directed at Labor Chairman Ehud Barak who is mulling whether to remain in the coalition after the Winograd Committee delivers its final findings. After all, if the leader of the free world calls Olmert his friend and is so impressed by Olmert, how can his defense minister abandon his guard and plunge the country into political turmoil?

Bush applied the same strategy of supporting Israel's prime minister in an interview granted before the 2005 pullout from the Gaza Strip. During the interview with Channel One, Bush showered praise on then prime minister Ariel Sharon.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/941811.html