"Those
who rode the wave of the Arab popular movements are those who were accepted by
the White House. … Will America's 'veto,' delivered with its usual ease and arrogance,
be enough to provoke whatever Arab dignity is left? Is it possible that America's
veto will trigger demonstrations by millions against its embassies in Arab countries?"
What's the truth about
America’s role in the region? Were we convinced for even a single day in recent
years that the U.S. administration would play the role of impartial sponsor of peace?
Is it fair for the U.S. administration to manipulate ruling Arab regimes as it
wishes? Does it have the power and influence to prohibit Arab leaders from even
stirring in anger? Are Arab leaders really prepared to sacrifice their peoples simply
to satisfy the Americans? What's the truth about America's role in popular Arab
movements? Can the United States rule over Arab peoples and push them in whatever
direction it likes? Do Arab politicians who stand to lead us first have to enter
the house of American obedience and pledge an oath of allegiance? Is the legend
of U.S. influence a purely American product, or is it an obsession we were
taken in by that we succumbed to without realizing it? The last in this apparently
endless series of questions is: How did we ever accept this degree of
colonization by the United States without Washington having to pick up the bill
for occupying us?
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Obviously, answers to these
questions are subject to a variety of interpretations. But we certainly need
not reargue the fact that the U.S. administration hasn't for a single day held
a neutral position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even when it didn’t
agree with Israel’s policies, it has always adopted the Israeli position and defended
it desperately. Not even on the basis of mutual interests has it approached the
Arab position, invariably adhering to the positions adopted by Israel. If this imbalance
was to be the focus of an Arab consensus, do Arabs have the will to confront American
influence in the region?
We have long believed that Arab
leaders are “remote-controlled” from inside the White House, that oftentimes Arab
rulers are tools in the hands of one if its' junior employees, and that as long
they controlled us, we would fail. This obsession with American control continues
to live on among the Arab peoples, who continue to go along with and not
confront it. It is enough to note here that those who rode the wave of the Arab
popular movements are those who were accepted by the White House.
We have been afflicted by America's
colonization, which has governed our decisions and policies. But this isn't the
old style of colonization and the U.S. administration pays nothing for it. I
wish that is where the matter ended. But the great disaster here is that we're
the ones that have paid the entire price for its colonization. Indeed, we have even
increased this price.
As long as we accept this of our
own volition and submit to the will and power of U.S. influence to the point
that it governs every detail of our lives, America will undoubtedly continue
its hostile approach toward us. Today we confront a new American bias. With the
passing of a “veto” that takes no account of our reaction, America's hostile
behavior toward us has reached the point of insolence. It is as if Newton’s law doesn't
operate in the Arab region. Will America's “veto,” delivered with its usual
ease and arrogance, be enough to provoke whatever Arab dignity is left? Is it
possible that America's veto will trigger demonstrations by millions against its embassies in
Arab countries? Or are our demonstrations focused on something else?
Will the American veto pass without resistance? If so, there
is nothing left for us but to await the next new American arrogance.
