Behind the Rage
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
nytimes.com
KHARTOUM, Sudan — It's a
measure of the rage
spreading across the Middle East
that even in this dusty capital,
almost at the edge of the world,
several hundred thousand people
have marched through the streets
denouncing Israel and America
— and in some cases cheering
Osama bin Laden.
Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands
of Moroccans have taken to the
streets to demonstrate, in their
country's biggest protest ever.
And four people have been killed
in the huge protests that are
shaking Egypt, Jordan, Yemen,
Bahrain, Tunisia and other
countries.
This frenzy in the Arab world is
fascinating, because while the
Israeli brutality in the occupied
territories is real, it is small
potatoes by Arab standards.
Some 1,600 Palestinians have been killed since the latest
round of violence erupted in the fall of 2000. In contrast,
two million Sudanese have died in the ongoing civil war
here, with barely anyone noticing.
Likewise, Syria blithely killed about 20,000 people in
crushing an abortive uprising in the city of Hama in 1982.
And Saddam Hussein, who has killed more Arabs than
Ariel Sharon and all his Israeli predecessors put together,
is somehow a hero for much of the Arab world.
What's going on here? After lots of soul-searching
conversations with Arabs, I'm inclined toward a couple of
conclusions:
First, there is a double standard; the Arab world is
outraged in large part because it is Israel that is killing
Arabs this time. Second, despite the double standard, the
outrage is still sincere and deeply threatening to
pro-American Arab governments; there is a tendency
among Israel's supporters to assume that the rage must be
feigned, but that's a fantasy.
In fairness, this kind of double standard is common around
the globe. White-ruled South Africa provoked anger
throughout the world, while worse abuses in Zaire,
Zimbabwe and Nigeria were ignored. And many Chinese
still despise all Japanese, even though Mao slaughtered
far more Chinese than Japanese militarists ever managed
to.
Michael C. Hudson, a professor of Arab studies at
Georgetown University, offered several reasons that Arab
outrage is going off the charts: The Palestinian problem is
bigger than other concerns, for it has involved an entire
society, several wars and the disruption of neighboring
countries; it is older, having burdened the Arab
consciousness since the end of World War I; it is more
visible, emerging from television screens every moment; it
is worse, at least in perception.
"Whether you measure it in deaths, eviction from home
and homeland, destruction and loss of property, the
ruination of lives in refugee camps, psychological damage
to children, or the continual insults from the conquerors
and their American patron — this issue is an existential
nightmare from which there seems no awakening,"
Professor Hudson said.
Another reason for the double standard in the Middle East
is that Arab countries are shame-based societies, and
Israeli repression of Arabs is seen not just as brutal, but
also as humiliating.
When a group of Yemenis scolded me for American
support of Israel, I retorted that America supports the
Middle Eastern leader who gives his Arab citizens the
greatest political freedom, and that's Ariel Sharon. There
was a long pause. Then one replied that Israel is a
colonial outpost and that as a result while Israeli Arabs
may have ballots and free speech, they have no dignity. In
other words, protesters are enraged not just because Israel
kills Arabs, but also because it humiliates them.
"The Israeli occupation represents a total humiliation of
all the Arab regimes," says Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian
activist in Florida. "It's a continuous reminder of the
weakness of the Arabs as people, of their society and
political system, as well as an indication of the impotence
and corruption of their regimes."
Israelis should not feel reassured just because Arab
protests reflect a double standard. In the mid-1980's I
covered South African business leaders for a time, and
anguished whites there constantly pointed out the double
standard of the scrutiny and moral expectations on them.
They had a point, but the world did not stop to listen and
in the end it didn't matter that there were many far worse
sinners. |
