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.