can the 'wall of lies' be breached?

Mar. 25, 2003
The Region by Barry Rubin:
Can the 'wall of lies' be breached?

I've viewed and read transcripts from dozens of Arab-language television debates, but there's something about actually participating in one that really brings home the terrible distortions that shape political opinions in Arab countries.

In my recent book The Tragedy of the Middle East, I called this the "wall of lies" that cripples honest debate in the Arab world. And though Western articles and texts are increasingly available to Arab audiences, even these are twisted to fit the context of what a trendy phrase calls the local "discourse."

So there I was in a panel discussion on the US war with Iraq, facing journalists and academics in three Arab capitals. At least an American point of view was being included certainly a positive sign, even if the odds were stacked three against one.

Perhaps the audience, I thought, was eager to hear someone contradict the conventional wisdom they usually heard. Possibly they identified with the Iraqi people being liberated from their dictator and were secretly cheering what I said. It's impossible to know for sure.

Among the points made by other participants were the following:

* The United States was leveling Baghdad, deliberately attacking residential areas and hitting such buildings as hospitals. One panelist said he knew Baghdad well and that the neighborhood being hit was a place where many people lived.

In fact, that part of the city is devoted exclusively to government buildings. I also tried, in vain, to explain that the use of cruise missiles targeted to a particular building was quite different from the indiscriminate dropping of bombs out of aircraft.

I also insisted that the clear US interest, which was shaping its strategy, was to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties and damage.

* The Iraqi forces were still holding out in the far south. Actually, not only were the Allies claiming to control the places being discussed, they were showing film proving it.

In other ways, too, the American strategy was said to be a failure. Such claims reminded me of similar statements during the 1991 war, when the media in many Arab states insisted until the war's end that Iraq was winning. Obviously, much of the Arab world would believe Iraq was winning until the entire country was under full US control.

* The plan for the attack had been set at a 1997 meeting to honor the centennial of the first Zionist Congress.

This came from a professor who, given more time to develop this theory, would likely soon have been citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

* The US wanted, as proven by an alleged quotation from Secretary of State Colin Powell, to redraw the map of the Middle East to its liking. This also indicated that the Americans would soon be attacking other countries in the region.

I tried to suggest that the main problem was Iraq's record and behavior, quoting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Saudi newspapers to this effect. It will be up to Arab governments and people to draw their own conclusions, I explained, but perhaps some Arabs would decide that they liked the idea of having a democracy.

This last point brought the angry question of whether I was saying that the US was trying to teach Arabs "a lesson," like some patronizing schoolmaster.

* America was in no position to instruct others, said one panelist, since it had 50 million illiterates, a misstatement of fact as well as a deflection of the Arab world's most serious problem.

* Americans hated Arabs and Muslims.

That was ridiculous, I said, while being in no doubt that most of the Arab elites and masses probably believe this.

* Since America was so terrible, a participant said, "We will teach our children to hate you."

After I said that this news would certainly be of interest to Americans, the statement was revised to the usual claim of not hating Americans, only US policy. I think the first formulation was more honest.

* America was only attacking Iraq in order to grab its oil. This claim was supported by an elaborate theory involving the idea that since Europe and China would equal the size of the US economy in a few years, America needed the edge provided by controlling the Middle East oil supply.

I responded by saying that the US would lose money in the war and that the oil resources would be controlled by an Iraqi government for the benefit of its people.

* Bush was the true leader of the Axis of Evil, and basically the United States was seeking world conquest. Of course the widespread opposition to the war in Europe and even in the US was cited in this regard.

* What did the Iraqi people do to you, I was asked, for you to treat them so badly?

What did the Iraq people do to you, I asked in return, to want them to continue living under such a vicious dictatorship?

Many other points were exchanged, but to me the most interesting question centered around something I had heard many times before, and often wondered about.

One panelist said that since God favors the just, Iraq would win the war. But, I asked, what if the US won the war? Would that prove that the US's cause was just and that God favored it? I resisted the temptation to add that this point could also be applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I was eager to hear how the others dealt with that idea, but everyone ignored it.

At any rate, I repeated several times, the end of the war would show how many civilians had been killed, whether much of non-military, non-government Baghdad had been destroyed, and whether the US really intended to promote democracy and leave the oil to Iraq's profit.

What remains so disturbing is the disconnection between reality and the beliefs and ideas offered up by most of the Arab world. What will it take to shake these misperceptions, which have led to so much suffering and failure? Perhaps Iraq, at least, might escape the treadmill to nowhere.

The writer's latest books are The Tragedy of the Middle East and Anti-American Terrorism in the Middle East.