EUROPE

By John Lichfield

After eight years of a Bush administration which divided, ignored or patronised Europe, EU leaders are bubbling with excitement at the prospect of a more creative, transatlantic partnership with President-elect Barack Obama.

The European Commission president, Jose-Manuel Barroso spoke of a “new deal” between the US and the EU, to shape the global agenda from trade to human rights to climate change. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, said: “At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world.”

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said, pointedly, that she that she looked forward to a “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

Others warned, however, that, once the gloss wore off, an Obama presidency was likely to bump against fundamental differences of interest between Europe and the US on issues ranging from trade, to climate change and how to handle a more assertive or belligerent Russia.

There was also a notable difference of tone yesterday in the reactions of those countries dismissed by the Bush administration as “Old Europe” and the reactions of some of the former Soviet bloc countries, which had aligned themselves with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld worldview.

Obama’s triumph was received ecstatically in Germany and above all in France, where over 90 per cent of people had told pollsters that they wanted a Democratic victory. John McCain’s defeat was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In Poland and the Czech Republic, the reaction was more muted. The Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, said that he hoped the future President Obama would ignore Democratic Party misgivings and push ahead with the Bush administration’s plans for an anti-missile defence and radar shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic. The shield – angrily opposed by Moscow - is likely to become a key litmus test of future US and European dealings with Russia.

FRANCE

By John Lichfield in Paris

In no other western country was a Barack Obama victory more anxiously awaited than in France. More than 90 per cent of French people – more than 90 per cent of the parliamentary deputies in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s centre-right party – had told pollsters that they preferred Obama to John McCain.

The Democrat’s sweeping victory was seen in France as an opportunity to create a more cooperative – and more equal – relationship between Europe and the United States, on issues ranging from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the global financial crisis and climate change.

More than that, Obama’s triumph was seen as a crushing disavowal of the conservative and neo-conservative forces which orchestrated a bullying campaign of denigration of all things French after Paris had actively opposed the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

“Where George W. Bush pronounced, bulldozed and failed, Barack Obama will listen, cooperate and then decide,” said Alain Duhamel, one of France’s wisest political commentators.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has annoyed many French people – including some in his own camp – by ingratiating himself with the formerly frog-bashing Bush administration since his election 17 months ago. Even he, however, has scarcely hidden his preference for Obama in recent weeks.

In a glowing congratulatory letter yesterday, M. Sarkozy addressed to “Dear Barak (sic),” the president said that Mr Obama’s “brilliant victory” and “exceptional campaign” had demonstrated to the world the continuing strength of American democracy.

“At a time when we all face immense challenges, your election will inspire immense new hope in France, in Europe and in the entire world,” President Sarkozy said.

Francçis Hollande, the leader of the main opposition party, the Parti Socialiste, paid tribute to the “audacity and courage” of the American people for electing a “man of progress” despite the “colour of his skin“.

He warned, however, that President Obama would govern in what he saw to be America’s best interest. Despite the global excitement, Obama could not, and would not, be a “president of the world“.

French diplomats issued similar words of caution in private. An Obama presidency, they said, should create a more equal and more cooperative transatlantic relationship. Once the gloss wore off, they warned, American interests would reassert themselves on such potential transatlantic flash-points as trade, global warming and relations with Russia.

IRAQ

By Patrick Cockburn

It became clear during the presidential election that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain had much idea of what was happening in Iraq. During the early stages of the campaign the two men were divided over the question of an American military withdrawal.

Mr Obama was only in the race because he had opposed the invasion in 2003. Mr McCain claimed the war could still be won.

This debate is now out of date, though nobody in the US has paid much attention to this in recent months because of the economic crisis. The Iraqi government is confidently demanding that the US withdraw its combat troops from the cities at the end of June 2009 and from Iraq entirely at the end of 2011. The timing of the pullout is not very different from Mr Obama’s plan to withdraw over sixteen months.

The danger is that the new Democratic administration will be paralysed by fear that it will be accused of selling out Iraq just when victory was in sight. Mr Obama may also be tempted to appoint tired old foreign policy veterans of the Clinton administration, regardless of their previous lack of achievement in the Middle East, in a bid to reassure the powers that be in Washington that he plans no radical changes.

Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, will in general be overjoyed to see the back of President Bush. There is nothing new in this. Polls in Iraq have always shown that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was popular outside the Sunni community but the US military occupation was never accepted. The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is now portraying the stalled Status

of Forces Agreement with the US as a way of ending the occupation. It will be easier for Mr Obama than Mr Bush to make the necessary concessions, many of them cosmetic, to get the measure past the Iraqi parliament.

There is another area in which an Obama administration could make vital changes in policy. The two main allies of the present Iraqi government are Washington and Tehran, yet Mr Bush deluded himself that Iranian influence in Baghdad could be minimized. From the beginning his occupation of Iraq was undermined by his foolish portrayal of the invasion of Iraq as a staging post on the way to overthrowing the Iranian and Syrian governments.

Not surprisingly they made sure the occupation never stabilized. Once this self-destructive policy of confrontation is reversed and the US talks seriously to them then one of the main sources of instability in Iraq will disappear.

MIDDLE EAST

By Donald Macintyre

Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday warmly congratulated Barack Obama for his “historic and impressive” victory. And certainly strenuous efforts have been made by Obama allies to reassure Israelis that they will in the words this week of Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton’s one time ambassador to Tel Aviv, have a “true friend” in the new White House.

Much will depend on what you mean by friend. Given that Israel is facing an election of its own which could return the right under Benjamin Netanyahu to power, it is hard to forget Mr Obama’s own remark, during the Ohio primary, that you didn’t have to sign up to every policy of Likud—Mr Netanyahu’s party—to be a friend of Israel.

The Israeli right has –surely correctly–feared that the new President, will not be the kind of friend who can make a Knesset speech, as his predecessor did earlier this year, which utterly fails even to exhort Israel to make concessions for peace.

The left has hoped that he will be the kind of candid friend who pushes Israel towards the agreed end to the occupation which they hope he believes is in its own –and America’s–interests.

Some in the middle—and in the Israeli establishment—actually see the Obama victory as a positive on Iran despite worries about his willingness to engage with Tehran, on the grounds that he has a much better chance of building an international coalition to stop it building nuclear weapons. Their fear is rather that domestic preoccupations — notably economic — will stop him prioritising the Middle East, including a deal with Syria, which would require the US at the table.

Bush has left more of an Israeli-Palestinian process, however flawed, than Clinton did after the collapse of Camp David. It is beset with problems including the control of Gaza by Hamas, whom Obama has said he won’t talk to unless they transform their stance. And many Palestinians, their hopes raised and dashed so often before, are anyway sceptical if an Obama presidency will make much difference. But Ghassan Khatib, the moderate Palestinian intellectual and former minister said yesterday by defusing the Iran crisis Mr Obama could create a markedly better atmosphere in the region, including for progress in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Their hope will be that he will at least fulfil his promise this year to make—in stark contrast to Bush and several other presidents—to make the Middle East a first term priority.

PAKISTAN

By Andrew Buncombe

Pakistan is the crucible of south Asia whose stability is key to containing the spread of Islamic militancy. More than a year ago, Obama angered Pakistan by voicing his support for airstrikes against al-Qa’ida militants inside the country on the border with Afghanistan and even the deployment of troops if Islamabad “cannot or will not act” against them. His promise to “take out” militants in the tribal areas was not well received.

In reality, the Pakistan government would have worked with the administration of whichever candidate had won. The policies of Mr Obama and Mr McCain were little different in regard to targeting militants in the tribal areas. Both men have also stressed the importance of the military operation in Afghanistan. Mr Obama said he will send an additional 7,000 US troops.

Pakistan’s prime minister congratulated Mr Obama, saying he hoped he would promote peace and stability. “I hope that under your dynamic leadership, the United States will continue to be a source of global peace and new ideas for humanity,” said Yousuf Gilani.

While some commentators in Pakistan have pointed out that “Democrats traditionally support India while Republicans favour Pakistan,” few are expecting a radical shift in US policy. “It’s not going to make much difference,” said Dr Rasul Baksh Rais, of the Lahore University of Management Sciences. “The US will continue its policy in Afghanistan. As far as this is concerned there seems to be consensus.”

More recently the now president-elect had talked of India and Pakistan finding a solution to the Kashmir problem. He said Pakistan needed to concentrate on dealing with militants, rather than the perceived threat from India. Many thought it was commonsense, but some in India believed he was proposing a US involvement in the issue, even raising the prospect of former president Bill Clinton being dispatched as a special envoy.

Unsurprisingly, in both India and Pakistan Obama has captured the imagination of younger people. While Indian culture traditionally respects its elders - and elects leaders who might look decidedly antique almost anywhere else - in India his campaign has received celebrity-style coverage in the run-up to the election. For a part of the world that for some long lived under foreign, white, ruled, the election of a non-White president by the world’s most powerful democracy clearly has resonance.

In a message to Mr Obama, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said: “Your extraordinary journey to the White House will inspire people not only in your country but also around the world.”

AFRICA

By Daniel Howden in Nairobi

Barack Obama’s victory was greeted with such enthusiasm across the largest and poorest continent on earth that it seemed at times to be an African, not an American election. It is here that the people he invoked “huddled around radios in forgotten corners of the world,” are to be found.

However, Africa was almost invisible in the candidate’s position papers, with references to Sudan, Aids and aid all largely indistinguishable from those of John McCain.

He is feted as a symbol, as a communicator and as an agent of change, and many suspect his greatest impact is likely to be limited to the first of those three.

In Kenya, the land of his father’s birth, expectations and reality clash most obviously. The country already enjoys a serious aid budget and the continent’s largest US diplomatic presence, change is unlikely.

Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a close ally of Washington, welcomed his election but said that Africans should not expect anything dramatic, especially while the US has its own economic crisis.

Not everyone moved to dampen expectations though. South Africa’s president Kgalema Motlanthe said: “We express the hope that poverty and under-development in Africa, which remains a challenge for humanity, will indeed continue to receive a greater attention of the focus of the new administration.”

The one area likely to be addressed in some form is Sudan. Darfur, and before it the plight of Christians in South Sudan, has captured the attention of the American public and by extension its politicians.

There is a perception that Democrats have taken a softer approach to the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.

LATIN AMERICA

By Paul Scheltus in Buenos Aires

Latin Americans are hoping for more carrot and less stick from President Obama than under his predecessor, President Bush. Immigration will be top of the agenda for most governments. Legalising the estimated 15 million illegal workers in the US and introducing a temporary worker programme, as well as secure borders are a priority for all Latin American nations, according to former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda.

In Buenos Aires yesterday morning young people from several Latin American nations echoed that theme. “It was time for a change,” said 24-year old Nacho Giretti. “I hope that from now on the treatment of immigrants in the United States will be more humane.” Under President Obama, relations with Cuba are expected to change. Obama has said he will ease travel restriction and allow unlimited remittances to be sent. Those signs were welcomed by dissidents and party officials in Cuba alike.

Pending free trade agreements, drug trafficking and energy policy are just some of many regional issues that need urgent attention. All require that President Obama “extend a hand” to Latin America, as he has promised he will.

CHINA

By Clifford Coonan

Although China is not a democracy and is run as a single-party state by the Communist Party, there has been keen interest in the election among the Chinese.Beijingers enthusiastically welcomed the election of Barack Obama as a victory for an attractive young candidate who would boost US-Chinese relations and resolve the global financial crisis.

“Obama is great. This election has really changed the history of America and racism in America. Obama can handle the economy better than Bush, he is more open to new things and also he won’t start a war somewhere,” said Hu Feimin, 26, a secretary from Anhui province.

The Beijing leadership is anxious to ensure change in the world’s most powerful country does not harm the interests of China, an emerging superpower.

“America has changed colour, it’s good. Now I hope to see practical progress in future relations between China and America,” said Liu Chenbing, 32, an engineer from Shanxi province. “What I hope for most is that America can do something good for unification with Taiwan and that the American financial crisis can be dealt with quickly and effectively,” he said.

President George Bush is popular here, but state media ran resoundingly positive coverage of Obama’s win, suggesting the official view on Obama is this is a president the Chinese leadership can do business with. State broadcaster CCTV hailed his Confucian qualities of filial piety and his strong family values.

Pundits hailed the incoming president as a positive symbol of change of the US.

“In the last 30 years, the relationship between China and the USA has come a long way. I believe the new government will continue to strengthen the cooperation between China and the U.S.A.,” said Tao Wenzhao, an American Studies researcher at the influential Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Shen Tianhong, 25, who works at a property management company, was surprised by the result.

“I thought white people dominated America and the presidency. But it’s a good decision,” she said.

“This is better for the world. And Obama can handle the American financial crisis more quickly, so that is good for China,” said Ms Shen.

Zou Qinyue, manager of a Sichuan restaurant, was focused on the economic aspect.

“Black or white, he must have something special to become president. I hope the economy stabilises, because then the global economy will stablise.”

Some young people learned what they know about US politics from watching US TV shows.

“The funny thing is that in “24,” there is a black president also. A black president can do good in his presidency, just like David Palmer,” said university student Zhu Ming.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Bush’s Mideast Dishonor

Writes: Sami Moubayed, in Damascus, Syria

I don’t think Bush needs to strengthen his legacy. It has already been deeply engraved in the history of the Middle East. George W. Bush has in fact ruined the Middle East.

No words can describe my anger at what the United States has tolerated or promoted in the Middle East under the Bush White House. The list is long: the war on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Falluja, Mosul, the war on Lebanon, Qana, and not to forget, the circus in Palestine, the killing in Jenin, and the siege in Gaza, topped with the elimination of Yasser Arafat, a democratically elected leader. These images have always reminded me of Sept. 11, 2001. The blood of these children—in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq—is no less valuable than that of Americans killed at the Twin Towers. Many Americans have been sending me “hate mail” recently, saying that the Bush Administration has been good to the Arabs and is trying to bring peace, security, and democracy to the Middle East. Sorry to tell them that this White House will be remembered for Abu Ghraib. It will be remembered for the atrocities in Gaza. It will be remembered for Qana.

Bush has perhaps single-handedly re-written the history of the Middle East—certainly against our will. This history has been very bloody and embarrassing for America, and it will affect America’s image for generations to come. Allow me to quote the former and legendary U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who spoke to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862 saying: “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. The fiery trail through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

In our part of the world, Bush has marched into history in great dishonor.

Each country singled out by the White House as a haven for democracy and progress has been ruined, beyond imagination, by his policies in the Arab World. America’s image has been perverted, distorted, and tarnished beyond repair in the minds of the millions of Arabs and non-Arabs who are disgusted by all the bloodshed we are seeing in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Everybody in the Arab World holds Bush responsible for all of this madness, along with prime ministers Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. I always wanted to write to the U.S. President and tell him: “Think for a minute, Mr. President, about how history will refer to you 100 years from now. Will you be ranked among great men like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt? What have they done for America and what have you achieved? Washington achieved independence for America. Lincoln fought the Civil War. Wilson won World War I and Roosevelt defeated Hitler in World War II. You ruined the image of your forefathers—the great men who founded and created the modern United States.”

To a mother whose child was killed in Qana, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Bush, will all be viewed as criminals. A grief-stricken person will not differentiate between good and evil, or right and wrong. He or she will hold America responsible for the death of their loved ones. I personally have high admiration for the American presidents mentioned above. They were strong leaders with talent, principle, and character. Bush is responsible for ruining their image in the Arab World.

To prove my point, I repeat a phrase that I have used over and over again since 2004, quoting Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts who said: “To many people in the Middle East, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty but a prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape, a dark hood on his head, afraid he is going to be electrocuted.”

Many discussions were held by American policymakers and intellectuals in the United States, after September 11, on one question: “Why do they hate us?” The answer can be summarized with one simple phrase: “Favoritism towards Israel.” What happened over the last eight years—in Palestine and Lebanon—was an unforgivable crime committed by Israel, under the watchful eye of the United States, thanks to Bush.

I received a very large amount of “hate mail” from Americans and pro-Israeli readers over the last few years in response to the series of articles I have written against the Israeli War on Lebanon, which coincides with July 12, 2008.

These readers were enraged by my condemnation of the United States and Israel, claiming that the “war on terror” was correct and justified. One reader wrote: “You are an ungrateful man and I am done reading your site” because of what I had just written about Israel and the United States.

At the same time, I received many, many e-mails from Arab readers who supported my arguments, saying that Bush’s bias against the Arabs was “an unforgivable crime”—in every sense of the world.

I happen to personally know many of the Arab readers with whom I have communicated. They are not turbaned and bearded fanatics who roam the world with guns, wanting to destroy Israel and the United States. Rather they are fine, Westernized, American-educated and highly cultured Arab men and women (many are actually not even Muslims) who have never carried a gun in their life. One addressed the Bush administration and cursed its policy-makers saying that they have “abused the names of the great men of American history.”

The colossal difference in views, and the accumulating anger on both sides, makes dialogue and understanding extremely difficult—especially in times of war; especially under George W. Bush.

One reader commented on my work, saying that he was “disgusted” because I was “demonizing the U.S. for trying to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East.” He added, “If you are too ignorant and too stupid to see that, then maybe you aren’t worth U.S. blood and gold.” Another reader added, and I quote him at length: “Go buddy up with Syria, go buddy up with Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, and go live in a piece of … world that glorifies suicide bombing by children, glorifies naked anti-Semitism and ignorance of the Holocaust, ‘honor kills their women and forces them to wear burkhas. Go ahead and chose to keep your part of the world uneducated, unemployed, and hopeless. Go ahead and chose to keep the Middle East the gutter of the world while America has the compassion to try and help you by removing the cancer affecting your region.”

In response, I write: What blood and what gold were spilled and paid by the Americans for the Arab World? I am astonished that an educated American would think in such a manner. America did not come to this part of the world to tutor or to educate. This is the biggest falsification brought to the world by President Bush.

Iraq was destroyed and looted under the Americans. There are over 10 people dying per day in America’s Iraq—so much for democracy and education. At one point it was more than 35 people dying per day in Iraq, meaning that more than one death occurs per hour in the “new and democratic Iraq.”

At one point more than 1,500 died per month in America’s Iraq. Mass graves—all created after Saddam Hussein, have been found in America’s Iraq, dug up by the Iraqis themselves under America’s watchful eye. Death squads are free to roam the streets, killing Iraqis by night.

Five years after the US invasion of Iraq, one cannot but wonder how the Americans missed a golden opportunity to create a secure democracy in the country to replace the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Optimists in the Arab world, especially pro-Western and particularly pro-American Arabs, defended the United States until curtain fall, saying that it truly would root out terrorism from Iraq, and bring both stability and democracy to the Iraqi people.

Every one of those beliefs has been shattered - over and over again, since March 2003. As Iraq enters its sixth year since 2003, it is safe to ask: what has been achieved? What can I describe as American “compassion” towards the Arabs?

Apart from the downfall of Saddam, not a single achievement is noteworthy in Iraq. The country today is a “democracy” in civil war - a democracy where human life is being wasted, along with the dreams and security of the Iraqi people. Inasmuch as free elections are a great asset of which all oppressed people dream, they mean nothing if security is lacking.

History will not remember the free elections that took place in January and December 2005 as much as it will remember the notorious pictures of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The killings and the death squads that haunt the streets of Iraq will live much longer in the minds of Iraqi people than the image of Saddam’s statue falling in Baghdad.

American soldiers torturing (Lynching) Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison
[Click on PICS to enlarge image]

Bush’s America did not come to democratize the Iraqis. It came to expand its sphere of influence, replace that of the former USSR, control the rise of political Islam, rebuild the Iraq it had destroyed, make use of Iraq’s oil wealth, and safeguard the security of Israel. Must I remind my American reader of the scandals of Abu Ghraib? Those pictures alone show how much compassion the Americans have for the Arabs. Must I remind him of the killing of 24 Iraqis in cold blood by U.S. marines at Haditha in November 2005 or of the killing of 11 Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops in the village of Ishaqi in March 2006?

The Arabs remember too clearly that it was the Americans who initially supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in 1979, simply because he challenged Iran. It was the Americans who orchestrated the first coup d’etat in Syria in 1949, toppling the democratically elected president Shukri al-Quwatli and replacing him with General Husni al-Za’im, a stooge of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), because the latter promised to respond to U.S. needs in the Middle East. These were mainly a crackdown on communism, a ceasefire with Israel, and privileges to Tapline, a U.S. oil company.

The fact that Quwatli had been democratically elected by his people meant nothing to the CIA, the White House or the Pentagon in 1949. The fact that Yasser Arafat, another democratically elected president, was besieged to his office in 2001-2004 also meant nothing to the Americans who said that he was “irrelevant” and completely ignored him—along with the will and choice of the Palestinian people, because he refused to become an American stooge in the Middle East.

The Americans must give to win the trust of the Arabs.

Arabs will only begin to have faith in the U.S. and the Bush White House when peace is brought to the Palestinians, security is maintained in Iraq, and American statesmen show more interest in real Arab domestic issues and democracy.

The Americans have also failed to portray themselves as honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the cornerstone of grievances to the Arab majority. The real problem that the Americans fail to understand is not Arafat, nor terrorism, nor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but land and freedom for the Palestinians. Once that is secured, a majority of Arabs will start to trust America.

The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. On the issue of Palestine, there is consensus among the 200 million Arabs. Since September 2000, more than 50,000 people have been left homeless in Gaza alone. The Occupied Territories currently suffer from 40 percent unemployment, and in Gaza alone it is over 50 percent. When the intifada broke out in 2000, the poverty rate was 21 percent, and by December 2002 it had increased to 60 percent. In Gaza, poverty today is estimated at over 80 percent.

Due to terrible conditions, food consumption in the Occupied Territories has dropped by 25 percent, and half of the population currently lives off United Nations aid. Malnutrition among infants is 22 percent, the highest in the region, matched only in the Sahara Desert.

The Israeli Defense Army has generated losses in Palestinian infrastructure estimated at U.S.$1.7 billion in 2002 alone. And that number is likely to increase, given the U.S. alliance with Israel and its generous donation of arms and money. When former secretary of state Collin Powell announced his plan for “democracy in the Middle East” in late 2003, he promised $29 million to promote a democratic culture to the Arabs. Whereas at the start of 2004, the White House gave Israel $300 million in donations to “help combat terrorism.”

In an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharanot, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice once said, “I first visited Israel in 2000. I felt I was returning home, despite the fact that this was a place I have never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the state of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it.” — Read: The tragic futility of Condoleezza Rice

No remark could have a worse effect on the inhabitants of the Middle East. Rice wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Cold War era and the USSR, and although she has a prestigious background in academia, she sadly has not read her Middle East history correctly. To the Arab street she is trying to appeal to today, the “founders” that she admires in Israel are nothing but invaders who realized early on that in order to survive they must uproot, kill and terrorize the Arabs and Palestinians.

Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s colonial department, said in 1940, “We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way [other] than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them! Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

In 1948, there were 475 villages in Palestine, 385 of which were bulldozed to the ground by Israel.

In 1938, the “founder” Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion, “The boundaries of Zionist aspirations include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s trans-Jordan, all of the West Bank and Sinai.” Ten years later, as premier of Israel, he said, “Our aim is to smash Lebanon, trans-Jordan and Syria. We shall establish a Christian state [in Lebanon], and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate trans-Jordan, then Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” (Taken from “Ben Gurion: A Biography,” written in 1986 by Michael Bar Zohar). These words have had more of an impact on Arabs, even those who are moderate and Westernized, than the democratic promises of Rice.

As an African-American who grew up inspired by the American Revolution against colonialism, and as someone who has read, if not memorized the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution, how can Rice admire a people uprooting, terrorizing and “smashing” another people? — Read: Lynchings in America — A History Not Known By Many — An hereditary trait that fully explains Abu Ghraib

   1935 lynching of Rubin Stacy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

   1919 lynching William Brown in Douglas County, Nebraska

   1936 lynching of Lint Shaw in Royston, Georgia

This is a question asked all over the Middle East, shedding a lot of doubt on Rice’s credibility when talking about democratizing the Arab World, and the support she has from her President. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the trinity that holds the U.S. together and defines its democracy, yet it has not been applied by the U.S.—Bush’s America—when dealing with the Middle East.

To make things clear to readers: I am not opposed to peace with Israel nor am I anti-Semite. One of my closest friends during childhood and young adulthood had a Damascene Jewish mother. She was a remarkable lady. I am someone who sees no difference between Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Baha’is. All of them have the right to live in peace and security. When Arafat signed Oslo in 1993, I was one of those who strongly supported him. I still think it was the bravest decision he ever took in his life. Oslo was ruined not because of Arafat but because of the outbreak of the intifada on Sept. 28, 2000. The outbreak of violence started after Ariel Sharon’s provocation in visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque. A circle of violence started after that, and all hell broke loose in the Middle East after Sept. 11, 2001. Give me a peace-wanting government in the United States and I will support Syrian-Israeli, or Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. One of my favorite quotes was made by Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, during the signing of Oslo. He said, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace.”

That was 15 years ago. These administrations, thanks to Bush, Olmert, and Rice, have spread nothing but destruction, setting Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine—and now possibly Iran—ablaze. That is their legacy. They have not surpassed “a time to hate, and a time for war.” They kept us at a “time to kill and a time to die” never bringing us a “time to heal, a time to laugh, a time to love, and a time for peace.”

Note: The picture illustrations, supporting links and anchor text to external resources are by PoliticalArticles.NET.

   [Enlarge Picture]
About The Author: Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst and historian based in Damascus, Syria. Moubayed is the author of “Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000)” and “Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (2006).” He has also authored a biography of Syria’s former President Shukri al-Quwatli and currently serves as Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria. In 2004, he created Syrianhistory.com, the first and online museum of Syrian history. He is also co-founder and editor-in-chief of FORWARD, the leading English monthly in Syria, and Vice-President of Haykal Media.

   [Enlarge Image]

Popularity: 17% [?]