Every decade brought with it a new surprise and a new belief
that things are going to be different this time. For example, at the start of
the Nineteen Seventies people reminded each other of the Chinese saying: “May
you live in interesting times” then quickly remind each other that they were
living in interesting times. Also, Pierre Trudeau of Canada greeted the Nineteen
Eighties with his famous cry: “Welcome to the Nineteen Eighties.”
As to the decade of the Nineteen Nineties, it had a charm of
its own in that it anticipated a new century and a new Millennium, waiting for
them to roll gracefully and usher a new era. And then there was the first
decade of the Twenty First Century when the world was changed by the events of
9/11. Now, we have an Arab transformation that is making its mark on this
second decade of the Third Millennium in a way that is rendering some people
anxious.
I must confess I have the sense that things are really
different this time. I say this because I see the coming together of many
different elements attempting to melt together in a pot that is not too
different from the American melting pot. The exception is that the melting is
happening on a world scale due to the ease of transportation that is available
to us, and the varied communication methods which are here for us to use.
To explain all this, I need to briefly discuss three words:
Parliament, Congress and the Majlis. The first comes from a Latin word which
means to speak. This is because when the Parliamentarians of Europe got
together, they spoke about the affairs of the nation. The second word is
derived from congregation, and this is because in early America ,
religion and politics were closely intertwined. Thus, when the American
officials got together, they felt like they were doing God's work. The third is
derived from the Arabic word “juloos” which means sitting down.
Thus, the Europeans talked to each other to call on their
collective power of reasoning before acting on the affairs of the nation. This
development was inevitable in Europe
considering that the Renaissance was injecting reason into the emerging
European cultures. As to the Americans, they congregated as if to invoke a
higher power before making a political decision. This happened because the
early Americans were mostly people who had fled religious persecution in
Europe, and had gone to America
to worship freely.
As to the Arabs, they were nomadic people that did not get
the chance to talk to each other until they stopped walking, got off the camel
or the horse, and sat in the tent to exchange the various points of view. Each
individual having wrestled with their ideas in silence and alone for a long
while, each knew exactly what these ideas were before they discussed them with
the group.
Would there be a difference in the way that each of the
three groups sees things and acts on them? Yes, there would be. For example,
the Europeans reason things out a great deal more than do the Americans who act
on faith more than anything else. As to the Arabs, they are so individualistic
in their thoughts, they appear unruly and chaotic to someone that is not
familiar with the way they reason things out before reaching a consensus to
then act on it.
You can see this in three articles that appear in the
September 13 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The first was written by Liz
Cheney under the title: “Cairo , Benghazi
and Obama Foreign Policy” and the subtitle: “In too many parts of the world, America is no
longer viewed as a reliable ally or an enemy to be feared.” The other two are
editorials written by the staff of the Journal. One editorial comes under the
title: “Romney Offends the Pundits” and the sarcastic subtitle: “Doesn't he
know he's not supposed to debate foreign policy?” And the other editorial comes
under the title: “The New World Disorder” and the subtitle: “As the U.S. retreats,
bad actors begin to fill the vacuum.”
It would take a few days to do a comprehensive analysis of
those three pieces. But relying on the background given above, it should be
easy for those who are interested to go through the articles, and do the
analysis themselves. Suffice it to say that you can already see in the titles
and the subtitles that the Americans regard themselves as being “holier than
thou.” Moreover, what Cheney says about America not being viewed as a
reliable ally or an enemy to be feared is high school fantasy. The fact is that
in this modern age, a nation that has legitimate interests to defend, does not
fear another nation, nor does it ally itself with someone simply because they
are reliable.
When you come right down to it, the notions which are
expressed by Liz Cheney and by the editors of the Journal are not really
authentic American notions but a mix of genuine American ideas and something
else -- something that was injected into the culture by the Jewish
organizations. Thus, the authentic American approach which is exemplified by
the saying: “Speak softly and carry a big stick” has been modified to sound
like this: “talk, shout, speak, warn, lecture and threaten here and there and
everywhere.” This is why you hear the mouthpieces of the Jewish lobby, why you
read them and why you see them pop on every show to call on America 's
leaders to speak loudly and bluff someone even if they have no stick to wave at
anyone.
And what they are moaning about now is actually the
professional manner by which the Egyptian government behaved in the wake of the
incidents that took place in front of the American embassy in Cairo . It is not the first time that an
American flag was burned. The first time it happened was during the Vietnam war
when young Americans did not like being drafted to go fight a war they thought
was not theirs to fight. They responded to the draft by burning the draft card
and burning the American flag. A debate ensued as to whether or not the act
constituted a freedom of speech. A law was enacted criminalizing the burning of
the flag, but I don't believe someone was ever prosecuted under it.
Moreover, unlike the Benghazi
incident, no one was hurt in Cairo
which makes of that incident not much different from the hundreds of times when
groups around the world have demonstrated – sometimes violently – in front of
embassies and consulates. In all these incidents, nobody asked for an apology
and none was given. But sensing that the matter may not be over yet, the
Egyptian officials restrained themselves to make sure that the disturbance will
not get out of hand before they say something that could inflame the passions of
hooligans, thus cause the kind of damage that ought to be avoided.
Thus, despite the effort of the Jewish organizations to
muddy the waters and fish in it, the character of the Arabs is coming to the
surface. It shows itself to be not the character of sheep that can easily be
regimented but the character of fierce individualists who turn unruly and
chaotic at times, especially when discipline breaks down – but nothing more
worrisome than that.
The Europeans are beginning to see this in the Arabs, and
they are blending it with their own character. As well, the Arabs are acquiring
much of the European character and blending it with theirs. Sooner or later,
the Americans will catch up with the rest of the world and will tell the Jewish
organizations to go jump in the lake of muddied waters they are making for
themselves the way that someone makes his own miserable bed.
We, human beings, are on our way to creating a worldwide
melting pot that may not exactly resemble the American pot but will be close
enough.
Join the rest of the world, America . It is going to be a
pleasant place.