This is beginning to get confusing. Michael J. Totten is posting over at Instapundit and Armed Liberal AKA Marc Danziger of Winds of Change is posting at Michael J. Totten (due to technical problems at WoC). AL has written an important post taking issue with the conclusions of the Century Foundation. AL quotes an from the Century Foundation’s paper:
…all three of these outlets have quickly achieved significant market share and at least a modicum of credibility among their listeners and viewers (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2, page 96). Polling data show that 74 percent of Iraqis watch al-Iraqiya on at least a weekly basis and 21 percent of those consider it “objective.”9 Al-Hurra, though not boasting ratings as high as al-Iraqiya’s, still claims a respectable average adult viewership of 29 percent in a dozen urban areas surveyed in North Africa, the Levant, and the Gulf region. Just over half of its viewers rate its news coverage as “very reliable” or “somewhat reliable.” Finally, Radio Sawa has staked out a weekly following of 38 percent of listeners polled in six Arab countries, including a high of 73 percent in Morocco. Remarkably, four of five listeners feel its news meets the same reliability criteria. Thus, on the basis of both market penetration and trust, these initiatives certainly appear successful at first glance.
With election judging, work commitments, and one thing and another I’m going to be hard put to comment on this paper in the detail which it deserves but I did want to make some observations.
To what degree are these opinions documented well-founded? Can we do anything about it? Should we do anything about it?
To what degree are these opinions well-founded?
The amount of foreign aid that the United States gives annually to Israel and Muslims is roughly equivalent. While it might be argued that, since there are only about 6,000,000 Israelis and roughly 1,000,000,000 that this is unfair. That would be true if the U. S. gave aid on a per capita basis. It doesn’t. It bestows its aid based on national interest. And, of course, politics. The numbers of Jews and Muslims in the United States is roughly equivalent so the per capita amounts are roughly equivalent based solely on the respective constituencies in the United States. So the notion that our direct foreign aid grants favor Israel would appear to be poorly founded.
Over the period of the last twenty years the United States has intervened militarily repeatedly on behalf of Muslims notably in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo but arguably in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq as well. To the best of my knowledge we have never intervened militarily on behalf of Israel. The notion that our military intervention on behalf of Israel is unfair would appear to be poorly founded.
Are our actions as interlocutor in the Palestine-Israel conflict fair? I honestly believe that we’ve tried. It’s very hard for me to figure what a fair settlement of the conflict would look like so at worst I’d have to consider the fairness of our role in this area as mezzo-mezzo. Clearly, if taking the position that Israel has a right to exist is unfairly favoring Israel, then we are, indeed, being unfair.
Do we side with the Israelis in votes in the United Nations? I would have to say yes on this. I won’t try to make the case for this (although I think it’s makeable). Chalk it up to political considerations.
So we find that U. S. foreign aid is fair, military intervention is fair, role in the Palestine-Israel conflict is somewhat fair, and our votes in the U. N. are unfair. On balance I conclude that the opinion held by the majorities described are poorly founded.
Can we do anything about it?
The short answer is no. There’s no way to make our case or get our message through. In most of the Muslim world there is no such thing as either freedom of speech or of the press. The most common formulation in constitutions in the Arab world is “freedom of the press is guaranteed except as provided by law”. There’s a state controlled press in every country in the Arab world. As we found during the Cold War, radio and television transmissions are jammable. And the same is true of satellite transmissions. Under the circumstances there’s just no way to let our message be heard.
Should we do anything about it?
I don’t think that we should change our policies solely to make the Muslim world happy for three reasons. The first reason is that, as AL points out, that would be morally abhorrent. The second reason is that it would be good for neither Israelis nor Muslims. My examination of the history of the Middle East for the last 40 years is that U. S. support of Israel has reduced likelihood of actual war between Arabs and Israelis and, consequently, has reduced the number of Arabs that the Israelis would have ended up killing in self-defense, and reduced the likelihood of a complete conflagration there. I won’t claim that it’s been completely successful but I will claim that it’s been partially successful.
UPDATE: Winds of Change is back up and AL’s post is here. I expect that there’ll be discussion of it.
