Have you ever tried to win over someone to your point of view by patiently explaining to them that they are completely wrong to be concerned about the things that are most important to them, and that in reality the whole problem is due to their own shortcomings, which you would be happy to help them overcome? How'd it work out for you?
That's how David Brooks (behind Times Select shield) and his soul mates from the American Enterprise Institute attempted to engage "moderate Arab reformers" at a conference in Jordan. Brooks found it "depressing" that the Arabs would not transport their American guests back to a mythical time when they knew it was all their fault:
There seemed to be a time, after 9/11, when it was generally accepted that terror and extremism were symptoms of a deeper Arab malaise. There seemed to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization.
What were these stubborn Arabs concerned about? "It was all Israel, all the time."
Brooks continued with his depressing discovery:
But there was nothing defensive or introspective about the Arab speakers here. In response to Bernard Lewis’s question, "What Went Wrong?" their answer seemed to be: Nothing’s wrong with us. What’s wrong with you?
I'd like to ask David Brooks: Were any of the AEI speakers "defensive or introspective" six years after this?
At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father.
Did they say anything defensive or introspective about invading Iraq under false pretenses, failing to secure the country, wasting billions of dollars on no-bid contracts, and sparking an insurgency and sectarian war that has caused two million of 24 million Iraqis to flee abroad, a million and a half to flee their homes inside the country, and, according to the only scientific study done on the subject, killed over 600,000 Iraqis? Or did they tell the moderate Arab reformers, "Nothing’s wrong with us. What’s wrong with you?"
For better or worse, I belong to the "reality-based community." I even earn my living that way. So I looked up some actual research by Professor Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Telhami, who has been polling public opinion in Arab countries for years, found years ago that:
The Arab-Israeli issue remains the prism through which most Arabs see the United States. . . . [T]his issue provides the distorting vision that makes it harder to address other issues. It also explains the level of passionate public anger with American policy, even if it is not the only basis for this anger.
It would be puzzling if the conflict were not central in the minds of the Arab public: since the creation of Israel in 1948, five major Arab-Israeli wars, mostly losing and devastating, have shaped the collective psychology of several generations. Their impact has been real in the lives of Palestinians and many in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and beyond. To this day, the unsettled Palestinian issue and the continuing bloodshed--now graphically relayed on television to homes in every corner of the Arab world--are daily reminders of the widespread sense of weakness and humiliation in the Arab world, both in relation to authoritarian governments and to the outside world. The Palestinian issue in particular has become an issue of identity for most Arabs.
I'm not defending the fixation of the "moderate Arab reformers" (according to Brooks) with the control of U.S. policy by "the Israel lobby," to the exclusion of analysis of the problems of their own societies. As Telhami wrote:
Many Arab governments and others have exploited the Palestinian issue to their advantage over the years, including to distract from real problems at home. Even Osama bin Laden, who initially ignored the Palestine issue, elevated it to the top as he sought to rally support for his cause after the horror of 9/11. Similarly, Saddam Hussein declared, as American troops surrounded Baghdad, "Long live Iraq, long live Palestine." That these are acts of deliberate manipulation is clear enough. But these acts employ the Palestinian issue precisely because no other issue resonates more with people in the region, providing the shortest cut to their sense of collective identity.
It is hard to reform when you feel you are under attack. It is hard to express self-criticism to representatives of the world's most powerful state who refuse even to entertain the idea that their own disastrous policies might have some connection to the reasons people distrust and even hate them.
There is a problem in the relations between the United States on the one hand and the Arab and Muslim worlds on the other. Unless you believe that those who oppose the U.S. are simply "evil," you have to address their grievances politically. The first rule in improving any relationship is to recognize the concerns of all parties. Remember "diplomacy?" That's what it's about: finding the "points in common" and "bracketing" the disagreements to work on them.
Arab and Muslim people (and many others, including Jews such as myself) care deeply about the suffering of the Palestinians. Perhaps David Brooks and his colleagues at AEI would like to follow Bertolt Brecht's advice to the East German Communists:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
My experience in almost thirty years of study of and travel in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories, years in which I never concealed my Jewish identity, is that many Muslims and Arabs are willing to discuss their societies' shortcomings and problems with someone who admits his own country's shortcomings and problems. A little humility goes a long way.
It's Passover and Easter. Jesus never denied that others could be wrong, but he suggested first looking to "the plank in your own eye." When I read the Passover seder, the lesson I learn is not that Jews -- or Americans -- or democracies -- are always right. I learn that the arrogant who harden their hearts will be drowned in a Sea they never needed to enter. I learn:
Ve-khi yagur itkhem ger, lo te'onohu ve-lo tilhatsenu, ki gerim heyitem be-erets Mitsrayim.
When a stranger dwells among you, you shall not abuse or oppress him, for you were stangers in the land of Egypt.
David Brooks predicts a "war over narratives." We don't need to fight this war. We need to listen.