Arab News Blog

Photograph by Morteza Nikoubazl for Reuters

Anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. policy is tilting public opinion in favor of Tehran and against Washington.

by Shibley Telhami, The Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2010

President Obama may have scored a diplomatic win by securing international support for biting sanctions against Iran, but Arab public opinion is moving in a different direction. Polling conducted last month by Zogby and the University of Maryland in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates suggests that views in the region are shifting toward a positive perception of Iran’s nuclear program.

These views present problems for Washington, which has counted on Arabs seeing Iran as a threat — maybe even a bigger one than Israel. So why is Arab public opinion toward Iran shifting?

Go to Source

In May I released a report for CNAS co-authored with Kristin Lord about the Obama administration’s strategy of engagement which warned that "as the administration entered its second year, there was a palpable sense that the Obama bubble had deflated." We warned that Arab publics, in particular, had grown frustrated at Obama’s perceived failure to deliver on the promise of the "new beginning" outlined in Cairo and had begun to lose hope in his ability to meaningfully change American policies towards the region. The findings of the annual survey of Arab public opinion conducted by Shibley Telhami, released publicly today, offer stark evidence for this deflating bubble.  

Telhami reports that positive views of President Obama have dropped from 45 percent in 2009 to 20 percent today, with his negatives rising even further — from 23 percent to 62 percent — as fence-sitters waiting to see what he delivered render their verdict. Only 12 percent express favorable views of the United States, compared to 15 percent in the final year of the Bush administration.  Only 16 percent declare themselves hopeful about administration policies, compared to 51 percent last year, and a statistically insignificant 1 percent are pleased with the administration’s policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-three percent declare themselves discouraged, up from 15 percent. Deflating bubbles don’t get illustrated much more starkly than this. While there are always problems with public opinion surveys in the Arab world, and results should be taken with caution, these findings are consistent with other recent surveys and with almost all other streams of evidence. I would argue that the results actually do not contradict last week’s more optimistic reading of the administration’s foreign policy – but they do point to some significant and uncomfortable realities about the costs of failing to deliver meaningful change.  

[[BREAK]]

The survey’s findings suggest overwhelmingly that it is the administration’s failures on the Israeli-Palestinian front which drove the collapse in Arab attitudes towards Obama. Sixty-one percent of the respondents say that this is the area in which they are most disappointed (Iraq, at 27 percent, is the only other issue which cracks double digits — only one percent name "spreading democracy").  Only one percent say they are pleased with his policy. Fifty-four percent name an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as one of two things which would most improve their views of the United States (withdrawing from Iraq is second, at 45 percent , and stopping aid to Israel third at 43 percent ). The numbers of Arabs saying they are prepared for peace with Israel has risen — to 86 percent — but so has the number who say that Israel will not give up the occupied territories (from 45 percent to 56 percent ). Only 12 percent — down from 25 percent last year — say that Arabs should continue to fight even if there is a two-state peace agreement.  Should a tw0-state solution collapse, 57 percent expect intense conflict for years to come, 30% expect the status quo, and only ten percent expect  a one-state solution.

On the bright side, there are hints that Obama’s approach to Islam is having some positive impact, despite the general displeasure with his foreign policy.  His attitudes towards Islam are by far the most popular part of his foreign policy, with 20 percent naming this as the policy they are most pleased with.  And even as Arab support for Obama’s foreign policy has collapsed, there has been a significant drop in those with "very unfavorable" views of the United States– from 64 percent in 2008 to 47 percent today. To the extent that those with more intense preferences are likely to be more supportive of terrorism, this suggests some real and enduring progress.  

The findings on Iran are also important. Most Arabs continue to think that Iran seeks nuclear weapons (55 percent ) rather than for peaceful purposes (37 percent ).  But 77 percent now say that Iran has the right to its nuclear program — up from 53 percent in 2009.  Only 20 percent say that Iran should be pressured to stop its nuclear program, down from 40 percent last year. And 57 percent now say that the effects on the region of Iran getting nuclear weapons would be positive — up from 29 percent last year — and only 21 percent say the effects would be negative.    Among those who say that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, there is greater support for international pressure:  68 percent of Jordanians, 50 percent of Saudis, 73 percent of Emiratis and 67 percent of Lebanese take that position (though only 16 percent of Egyptians do). But overall, there is very little support here for the notion that Arabs are secretly yearning for the United States to attack Iran. Really little.  

Oh, and in the non-surprising category, the survey reveals that Turkey really is increasingly popular — second only to France on the question of which country is playing the most constructive role in the region.  Erdogan is now the most popular individual in the Middle East, with 39 percent ranking him first or second (20 percent first place). He beats out Ahmedenejad at 19 percent (12 percent first place) and Nasrallah (12 percent ) and everyone else by a wide margin. 

The results of  Telhami’s survey, which strongly support the analysis in our America’s Extended Hand report, should be sobering for supporters of the administration’s foreign policy. The perceived failure to deliver meaningful change has taken its toll. Public opinion surveys are only one part of the story — the goals of engagement are always broader than "moving the numbers"
in opinion surveys, even if any administration would happily trumpet positive numbers, and deny the significance of bad numbers. If the administration begins to deliver — on Israeli-Palestinian peace, on the withdrawal from Iraq, on engagement with Iran — then the numbers will change. I’m more optimistic about the prospects of the administration delivering on some of those — especially Iraq and Iran — than are others. But since the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains what Telhami calls the "prism" through which Arabs evaluate American policy, that may not be enough.  

Go to Source

Among the many reasons for staunch Western support for the Zionist project in Palestine — from the Balfour Declaration to today’s contortions to defend the indefensible in Gaza and elsewhere — is a pretty basic racism. The Zionists, after all, were mostly Europeans, and even as second-class Europeans, they ranked a notch or two above the natives of Palestine. This has long been an implicit part of the Western posture towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Middle East in general.

In the last decade or two, this has become more explicit, with rallies to Israel’s defense being made for the sake of Western civilization against the Mahommedan hordes and much talk about “Judeo-Christian” values among the conservative pro-Israel community, particularly in America. As in for instance in this latest project by a smattering of European right-wingers called the Friends of Israel Initiative, in which the first point is:

1. Israel is a Western country. With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations. 

Normal Western countries don’t have religious laws and don’t restrict immigration to a single religion. Nor are they occupiers of other people’s lands and conduct wars of collective punishment with their immediate neighbors. But they care about this point so much they basically repeat in point four:

4. Israel is on our side. With this in mind, we must be clear in recognizing that Israel’s fight is our fight. Western democracy will not prevail unless we recognize and assume the Judeo-Christian cultural and moral heritage which first gave rise to those institutions and the values which initially inspired them, and strengthen them. The assault on Israel is itself an assault on Judeo-Christian values. Israel stands on the front line, but we are next in line. If Israel’s right to self defense is questioned in the Middle East, our right to self-defense will be questioned when fighting similar terrorist enemies in Afghanistan, and at home. If principles of human rights and universal jurisdiction are to be turned into weapons against Israeli democracy, what makes us so sure they will not one day be used against European and North American democracy? Israel’s future is our fate. 

Being partly of European background, I have to say I don’t see much that’s Judeo-Christian in European values. Christian, yes, definitely, although today there are as much if not more secular and even anti-religious values. But the idea that the West has always cherished “Judeo-Christian” values is rather odd, considering it persistently practiced anti-Semitism in various forms for hundreds of years. There was no deep-rooted respect for Jews or their values in Europe aside from the Christian interest in the Old Testament — history since the Inquisition makes that pretty clear. This new trope of Western conservatism is a recent invention.

Go to Source

The allocation of water resources is another bone of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Go to Source

AFP – Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas warned on Thursday that lack of progress toward Middle East peace was eroding faith that a two-state solution could end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Go to Source

AP – The Vatican said Sunday that the international community is ignoring the plight of Christians in the Middle East, and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war in Iraq and political instability in Lebanon have forced thousands to flee the region.

Go to Source

The CABLE/ here

When Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, his main message was not about Syria, Hezbollah, or even Iran. He told the assembled lawmakers that the U.S. had to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before it could make progress on those other pressing regional issues.

“He feels that the growth of terrorism and the instability in his country and elsewhere is still an outgrowth of the inability to find peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that the lack of progress there continues to jeopardize not only Lebanon but other states as well,” the committee’s ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, told The Cable upon exiting the meeting.

Hariri made a plea for more military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces, a subject of internal administration debate in Washington, but did not comment on concerns that Syria is transferring new long-range missiles to Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group that Washington has designated a terrorist organization.

“He did not accuse the Syrians but he did acknowledge that Hezbollah does have arms,” said Lugar. “When asked ‘Why don’t you disarm them?’ he responded, ‘That would lead to civil war.’” Lawmakers, many of whom have a personal affinity for Hariri and travel to Beirut often, decided not to press the issue.

“We did not get into the specific armaments that Syria has given Hezbollah,” Lugar said. “It didn’t happen to arise in this conversation.”…….. lawmakers didn’t ask Hariri to do anything specific to advance that objective, Kerry said. “I think he’s been an enormously helpful partner with respect to the issues in the region.”

Not everyone thinks the Lebanese prime minister has been so helpful, especially when he reportedly said last month, “Threats that Lebanon now has huge missiles are similar to what they used to say about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”…

Kerry, who just returned from a trip to Syria, declined to say if he had made any progress with the government there. “I just had discussions about the normal things,” he said.

Go to Source

STRATFOR

“BARACK OBAMA “DROPPED IN” on a meeting between U.S. National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday. In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama joined Jones and Barak in discussions about the Iranian nuclear threat…

The American president joining the Jones-Barak meeting is significant given recent tensions between the United States and Israel over the Jewish state’s move to build additional settlements in the West Bank…

Beyond the fact that meaningful progress on the Israeli-Palestinian is not likely in the foreseeable future, the Obama administration has much bigger problems to deal with in the region, namely, an increasingly assertive Iran. The struggle with Iran also has its complexities, including Iraq, the nuclear issue, Afghanistan and Hezbollah. But Iran — despite its baggage — is one problem the United States has to deal with, and soon.

“Obama’s meeting with Barak helps in terms of reminding the Iranians that the U.S.-Israeli spat is temporary, and that there are limits to how far Tehran can exploit it.”

The problem is that Washington is neither able to impose an effective sanctions regime nor exercise the military option without unacceptable risks, so any diplomacy it engages in will be from a position of relative weakness. Therefore it has to try and improve its bargaining power. At present, the Iranians feel they have the upper hand in the struggle because of a number of regional cleavages.

Iran takes comfort in a host of regional dynamics. These include Iraq, Syria, Turkey … and the American-Israeli rift. If the United States is to deal with Iran from a position of relative strength, it must first reshape the regional situation, at least as far as Iranian perception is concerned……. there are limits to how far Tehran can exploit it. Similarly, there are efforts by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to exploit Iranian-Syrian disagreements over Iraq to try and pull Damascus away from the Iranian orbit. Likewise, Washington is also hoping it can get Turkey to take a more firm stand against Iran.

The intent in all of this is to try and demonstrate to the Islamic republic that it does not exactly have the upper hand, and force it to change its behavior to reach a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, there are signs that the Iranians might be willing to cut a deal. There have been reports about the Iranians relaying to the Saudis their desire to hold talks, and discussions between Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners about the possibility of Arab-Persian diplomacy.

Iran’s interest in such negotiations is to secure recognition from the Arab states for an Iranian regional role. Certain Arab quarters are of the opinion that such talks ought to be held in the interest of containing rising Iranian regional clout. The Saudis, however, are fearful that any such negotiations favor the Iranians more so than the Arabs, and are therefore reluctant.

But it is the Israelis who are the greatest opponents of any such regional settlements. Any greater alignment between the Arab states contradicts the Jewish state’s need to maintain divisions among its Arab neighbors. More importantly though is the need to prevent any regional settlement with Iran, which could rehabilitate the clerical regime within the international community.

This would explain recent Israeli claims that Syria has provided Hezbollah with Scud missiles, which were(the claims) likely designed to undermine any regional settlement move, especially one involving the Persians. Therefore, the United States faces a major challenge in terms of not just reaching a detente with Iran, but also making sure that such an arrangement does not threaten Israeli interests.”

Go to Source

Go to Source

“… Hezbollah’s lack of motive makes it unlikely that the party would have acted on its own initiative in killing Hariri. True, Nasrallah and Hariri were poles apart politically…. The two men grew close in the last months of Hariri’s life, holding a series of secret meetings in Nasrallah’s heavily guarded home, beginning in June 2004. Snacking on coffee and fruit, they discussed weighty regional affairs such as the Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and their shared fears of Sunni-Shiite strife.

Mustafa Nasr, Hariri’s advisor for Shiite affairs, who attended the meetings, told me in 2005 that the two men had a genuine rapport and shared much in common on a personal level, (such as?) even if their visions for Lebanon remained different.

Given the lack of motive, it has been mooted that elements within Hezbollah might have cooperated in the planning of the assassination with an external power, presumably Syria, without the knowledge of the party’s leadership. If true, this would raise all manner of intriguing questions about Hezbollah’s internal command and control. ….

Hezbollah circles have been abuzz with speculation in recent days over the tribunal’s intentions. There is a universal belief among Hezbollah cadres and their supporters that the tribunal is being manipulated by the United States to attack the party.

Recent conversations with two Hezbollah military unit commanders suggest that mitigating the potential fallout from the tribunal’s investigation has become a top priority for the party. The two commanders agreed that before Israel can be confronted, Hezbollah has to ensure that it will not be “stabbed in the back” by its Lebanese opponents. This requires building a political and public consensus in Lebanon to block the tribunal from moving against Hezbollah, they said.

Any domestic attempts to take advantage of the tribunal to weaken Hezbollah would be “slapped down,” they said. They also refused to rule out the possibility of a show of force on the streets, as occurred in May 2008 when Hezbollah overran the mainly Sunni western half of Beirut following an attempt by the U.S.-backed Lebanese government to shut down the party’s private military communications network.

For now, however, Hezbollah has limited its response to denying any involvement in Hariri’s murder and questioning the tribunal’s credibility. On Wednesday night, Nasrallah accused the tribunal of leaking information implicating Hezbollah, warning that if the leaks continue he might halt his cooperation with the investigation.

Last week, the office of Daniel Bellemare, the tribunal’s chief prosecutor, said it took “strong exception” to allegations that it was deliberately leaking information to the media. Yet it is no secret that some Western officials are given periodic briefings on the tribunal’s work, allowing them insights into the investigation’s direction, if not all the key details. It can be safely assumed that the Syrian and Iranian governments do not receive the same courtesy.

Such briefings and leaks (authorized or not) make it easier for critics to challenge the credibility of the tribunal. Since its inception, the tribunal has had to defend itself against accusations that it is a political instrument, serving the interests of the United States and France under the respective leaderships of former President George W. Bush and former French President Jacques Chirac. The two countries supported Lebanon’s call for an international investigation into the Hariri murder because it would pressure Syria, the prime suspect. If Israel had been the chief suspect, there never would have been an international investigation and tribunal.

But political calculations in the Middle East have changed since 2005, and there are no guarantees that the outcome of the investigation will be to the liking of the powers that supported it in the first place. Saudi Arabia and France have recently patched up their differences with Syria, and Washington has embarked upon a hesitant re-engagement with Damascus. Syrian influence in Lebanon has steadily returned, causing the March 14 coalition, which spearheaded the anti-Syrian campaign in Lebanon from 2005, to crumble. Saad Hariri, Rafiq’s son who was appointed prime minister last year, swallowed his personal feelings to travel to Damascus in December to embrace Syrian President Bashar al-Assad……..

It is difficult to envisage how Lebanon can avoid a serious political crisis if the tribunal issues indictments against Hezbollah officials. In that event, Saad Hariri will face an unenviable dilemma. On Monday, he reiterated his support for the tribunal, saying that it was a “big component of stability in Lebanon.” “We will accept any decision that comes out of the tribunal, whatever it is,” he said.

But he and his coalition government, which includes a member of Hezbollah, are in no position to compel the Shiite party to turn over anyone indicted by the tribunal, which presumably would conduct the trials in absentia. Such a scenario, however, would lead to the absurd situation of a Lebanese government declining to comply with the demands of a tribunal that is partially funded by Lebanon, includes Lebanese judges, and has been championed from the beginning by the Lebanese state. …”

Go to Source