Responding to Egyptian Propaganda

Typical for the government-controlled press in the Arab world, an Egyptian newspaper has written an editorial blaming America and Israel for all of its problems. The piece is, of course, filled with with distortions, lies and propaganda, but a reader of TheSolidSurfer.com has written a worthy response which I'd like to reprint in this post.

Here is the editorial, from Al Ahram Weekly in Egypt. I have also included my own comments, interspersed with the piece (and noted), and the reader's response letter follows at the end.

Editorial: The US administration has formed a committee of experts on the Middle East to examine the root causes of Arab and Muslim resentment of US policies. This is a positive sign since it at least involves an admission that something has gone amiss. As does the recent whirlwind regional tour of Karen Hughes, Washington's newly appointed deputy secretary for public diplomacy, who was despatched to sell US policy. She will face an uphill battle given the levels of hatred -- and they are growing -- the US now attracts.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Hmm, maybe Arabs and Muslims hate the U.S. because they live in unfree countries where their governments give them false and distorted portraits of America. Like in this newspaper editorial.

Editorial (continued): The Arabs, like a great many other people, once respected the US. America, they thought, stood for justice, equality and liberation -- principles Woodrow Wilson spelled out in his famous 14 points in 1918. Now, though, when we think of Washington we see little beyond the arrogance of a clique determined to push others around to suit whatever purpose is at hand, and regardless of the consequences.

TheSolidSurfer.com (continued): Well, the U.S. is trying to bring democracy into the Middle East, to benefit the people at large. Which, of course, is not good news for the autocratic, unelected Egyptian government trying to stay in power at all costs. Of course they feel like Washington is trying to push them around.

Editorial: Perceptions of the US began to sour following WWII as successive US administrations embraced the legacy of British and French colonialism and sought to advance their own interests whatever the cost to others. But Arabs only began to hate the US when it began to give unquestioning support to Israel, as well as to repress Arab regimes, in order to secure a cheap supply of oil. The invasion of Iraq was simply the last straw.

TheSolidSurfer.com: This is an outright lie. Name one nation that became a U.S. colony after WWII. You can't, because there aren't any. The U.S. never suppressed any Arab regimes for cheap oil either - with oil prices at records highs, that argument can't even fake being logical. Not to mention, of course, that if we truly did repress Arab countries for their oil, we and not King Abdullah would control Saudi Arabia right now.

Editorial: To successfully sell US policy to the region, Hughes might try answering the following questions:Why has the US spent over $100 billion in Iraq, while only $25 million is set aside for the promotion of democracy in the Arab world?

TheSolidSurfer.com: What do they think the $100 billion is for - leisure spending? All that money is going towards creating democracy in Iraq. As for the "mere" $25 million, the editorial gives no source, so for all we know, this could drastically understate the real amount. (Considering the other obvious lies in the piece, I wouldn't be surprised.) But even if the number is accurate, that's still $25 million more than any Arab government has spent on democracy. If Egypt truly believes in democracy's value, they should work towards it themselves, and should not blame the U.S. (or anyone else) whatsoever.

Editorial: How could US President George Bush, at the Aqaba Summit, pledge to preserve the Jewish identity of Israel? How, in the 21st century, can an American president support a racist state founded on a religious basis?

TheSolidSurfer.com: Want to talk about racist states founded on a religious basis? Try Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Syria for starters. They won't even allow Jews to move to those countries, and all non-Muslims are heavily persecuted. Israel, on the other hand, has a one-million strong (about 20% of Israel's population) Arab minority who have full rights as Israeli citizens.

Editorial: How can the current US administration justify going to war against Iraq, a country debilitated by 10 years of sanctions, on the basis of a lie?

TheSolidSurfer.com: This quote sounds like they borrowed it verbatim from American leftists. Well, let's see - the U.S. only removed one of the worst dictators in history and freed 25 million of their fellow Arabs.

Editorial: Everywhere it goes the US leaves behind a trail of havoc, in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it just a coincidence these three countries are all Muslim?

TheSolidSurfer.com: No, it's not a coincidence that they're Muslim, and for the exact opposite reason that this editorial implies. In all three countries, Muslim dictators took control and virtually enslaved their people. Then the U.S. came in and freed them. Ask the actual residents of these countries whether the U.S. created "havoc" for them or whether they prefer being free. I doubt the writer of this editorial will like their answers.

Editorial: The US never raises an eyebrow over Israel's nuclear arsenal, yet would not think twice about attacking Iran or Syria should they attempt to pursue a nuclear programme. Why?

TheSolidSurfer.com: Because Israel is a democracy and is not a threat to malevolently use nuclear weapons. Iran, and Syria, on the other hand, are unfree countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. Just the other day, Iran announced an intention to destroy Israel. You really want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons? The U.S. is absolutely correct.

Editorial: The US needs to change policy, not presentation.

TheSolidSurfer.com: Egypt needs a democratic government and a free press, instead of the slanderous lies they print in their editorials.

And now, for the reader's response to the editorial:

Of course all citizens in the U.S. want the best image possible in the Arab world. However the text of your article indicates the wide divergence between our respective views of the world. Yes, I believe the United States pushes the leaders of Arab states to change their philosophical and political views. But this is rational - we want your governments and citizens to live in free and open societies. Does this serve our own interests? Yes, because seasoned citizens of free and open societies typically become economically invested in a peacful and liberal lifestyle. We want your governments and the citizens of your states to become integral to improving the quality of all - including us. We "push" for change which will engender an Arab enlightenment; we hope you will be our equal partner not our subsidiary. Our government is not a clique and it does not "push others to suit whatever purpose is at hand and regardless of the consequences." Our "pushing" has a purpose, and we understand that it entails risks.

TheSolidSurfer.com comments: Thank you for the contribution. I agree entirely that the American actions under discussion are for the good and fully justified. As my above dissection of the piece demonstrates, the autocratic Egyptian government is merely acting in its best dictatorial interest by refusing to admit any responsibility for its nation's difficulties and instead blaming America and Israel. But while such disinformation helps keep Mubarak and company in power, it clearly harms the general Egyptian populace, because blaming someone else, no matter how convenient, will never solve their actual internal problems.

Clearly, the unelected repressive governments in most Arab countries have been dismal failures, and the U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the region are an excellent source of hope.

And speaking of related news:

Not a Sunni Day for the Left. Bruce Kesler examines the positive changes in the Middle East resulting from the war in Iraq. A prime example of American action succeeding once again.

America and Overpopulation Myths

Ever driven across rural America and seen how much empty space is out there? Often, you'll cover hundreds of miles of land virtually devoid of people.

Contrary to the claims of many leftwingers, environmentalists, and other other doomsday population bomb types, the United States is not overpopulated. Far from it. Our 300 million people live in a geographic area about the same size as China, home to more than 1.3 billion. Many other areas of the world, including most of Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and West Africa also carry far greater population densities. Furthermore, we produce more food than we can possibly eat, and our per capita economic output leads the world (apart from Luxembourg, whose tax-haven status greatly inflates GDP).

But that doesn't stop certain leftist rants such as the one this San Francisco Gate columnist pulled on an Arkansas family that recently celebrated the birth of its sixteenth child.

Now of course sixteen kids is a lot, and certainly most people desire far fewer. But these particular parents wished for more, and that's that. End of story. There is certainly no need to publicly ridicule them for overpopulating the world (or to ridicule them for any reason, period).

The column's author may be correct in stating that one billion children around the world live in poverty, but this is entirely unrelated to the size of America's population (or, for the most part, population size anywhere). Rather, these poor children overwhelmingly live in unfree nations ruled by thugs and dictators who vastly limit their people's economic potential. South Korea, for example, has over double the population of North Korea, but the dictator-ruled North mires in dire poverty while the democratic South abounds in wealth.

Overpopulation clearly is not the drastic problem that many claim, and most certainly not in America. Our nation has plenty of room to grow, and if we choose to do so, then by all means we should.

U.S., U.N., Africa, and Afghanistan

A significant piece of evidence in the money laundering case against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was a supposed list of Republican candidates who received the dirty funds. But now prosecutors have admitted that the document does not exist. Looks like DeLay wasn't just assigning blame when he claimed to be an innocent victim of partisan politics.

The latest move by the U.N. is just disgusting. They invited Robert Mugabe, the dictator president of Zimbabwe who seized white-owned farms and caused drastic food shortages for millions of his people, to address a conference aimed at solving world hunger. What's next - Fidel Castro heading up a conference on democracy?

About a month ago, I briefly noted an article discussing the advantages of DDT in combatting malaria. And now another piece is greatly urging spraying the chemical in hard-hit Africa. Use the links at the bottom of the article to call on your senators and President Bush to support this.

Afghanistan warming up to Israel? President Karzai wants to formally recognize Israel if his Palestinian "brothers" also get a state. Coming from the leader of a Muslim country, this condition unfortunately does not surprise. But the Afghan leader should recognize who his true brothers really are; significant genetic and cultural evidence point to the Afghans as being one of the Ten Lost Jewish Tribes.

John Lennon - Republican?

The fact that I titled a recent post after a John Lennon album reminds me that the ex-Beatle would have turned 65 over the past weekend. And to commemorate the occasion, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates on what Lennon would be like were he still alive. Of course any such predictions are pure guesses, but Davies concludes that just like in the late '60s and early '70s, John would be at the forefront of liberal/radical activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.

Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.

Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.

Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)

Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers liberal, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the "Let It Be" album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his assassination in 1980.

Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.

Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."

Walls and Bridges

An easy way to construct border fences? The United States clearly needs better border protection, especially to keep out terrorists and illegal smuggling. And the same walls used as sound barriers around freeways just may do the trick.

Joseph Farah encourages conservatives to liberate the classical liberalism within themselves. Classical liberalism, of course, being far different than today's left-leaning "liberalism."

The solution to poverty: The best aid is trade.

Victor Davis Hanson is optimistic on Iraq and says most Americans are too. I agree.

Saddam Hussein's trial begins next week.

Steven Plaut writes an open letter to Rachel Corrie's parents. Scroll down after you've read it too, and look at Comments 19 and 20 on the page; they are as essential to understanding the issue as the letter itself.

Blog of the Day: Atlas Shrugs

Happy New Year!

Nope, it's not January 1st, but the past couple days were Rosh Hashanah.

Interesting news to start year 5766:

President Bush vows to continue the fight against terrorism, and the Iraqi president agrees.

Jonah Goldberg on the Harriet Miers choice.

Looks like I'm not alone in criticizing the abortion-crime theory in the book Freakonomics. Former U.S. education secretary and current talk radio host Bill Bennett did so as well, and his remarks have been roundly condemned by the Left because he also mentioned the factor of race. But a closer examination of his words reveals that these critics quoted him quite out of context. Certainly Bennett could have conveyed his point in more appropriate terms, but to call him racist over this is wholly inappropriate as well. As unpleasant as it may sound, Bennett's unspoken implication that African-Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than other ethnic groups is nonetheless statistically true. (Whites commit more crimes overall, but blacks have the highest rate per capita.) A better media response, in my opinion, would be an examination of this discrepancy with an effort towards reducing the crime rate for all. Of course, skin color itself has nothing to do with crime (or any other social factor). But given that fatherlessness is the top predictor of criminality and that 70% of black children grow up without a father in the home (a rate far exceeding that of other ethnic groups), parental involvement clearly should be prime fodder for discussion.

Blog of the Day: National Review's The Corner