The Royal Republics

The president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, announced couple of days ago in a party gathering in Yemen that he is not going to run as a candidate for the presidency in next year elections. Amidst the shock of party activist, president Saleh continued to say that it's time for a newer generation, a youthful one, to run and rule the country. He also said that the rulers, he meant the Arabs; have to leave office before they are forced to do so. For many observers this gesture sounded like a real change in Arab politics. Well, it is, but a smart and clever maneuver on the part of President Saleh that probably will be followed by other Arab presidents. When president Saleh mentioned transferring the rein of powers to a new generation of Yemenis he was eying his Son who also happens to be the head of the republican guards and the Special Forces that basically protects the regime. President Saleh, probably, will have his party elect his son as its running candidate for the presidency, and probably if this happens, the son will win. President Saleh by this maneuver would prove to be a clever politician who while out of office will be in the office through his son. Also the president will protect his son while he, the president, is alive and lastly would ensure that his son will be elected again while he is alive. I talked briefly about this point in previous articles but thought to bring a fresh example of what I already have predicted that the Arab presidents are emulating the system of the monarchs and trying to create the royal republics where you have a republican for of government without a form a royal title or a formal inheritance system. Watch next for Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya.

kifaya and the Arab Grass Roots Movements

"Kifaya or Enough" is a small yet gaining momentum grass roots secular movement calling for change in Egypt. It is unique that it is the first time since a long time that a secular movement for a peaceful change is gaining momentum not only in Egypt but in many other Arab countries. Since the sixties and early seventies the calls for change have been owned to groups that called for a religious change the way they see it. The vast majority of the masses were and still are silent but Kifaya is gaining momentum. Kifaya depends on small and short yet much publicized strokes against the aging regime of President Mubarak of Egypt. They organize almost daily demonstrations with small number of people and they use poetic slogans to express their feelings, frustrations, demands and hopes. The Egyptians have been famous of expressing themselves politically by using jokes or poetic slogans. They found this method over the years safer than using direct statements calling for change. During one of Kifaya demonstrations that took place in the same time of a visit by US Secretary of State Condi Rice, demonstrators were shouting " give him a visa, give him a visa, and take him with you Condoleezza" they meant of course to take with her president Mubarak. Another poetic slogan says “wake up! You who are sleeping in Abdin-one of the presidential palaces- your rule is in the mud and dirt!" again they meant the president. The "virus" of Kifaya is spreading in the Arab world under other names, sometimes similar with the same simple idea to create grass roots movements that -they hope- eventually will change the status qua. The field in the Middle East is no longer lift to extremists, other groups and people across all sects and religions are going to the streets asking for change. They are not only asking for political change but also for economic change. Lady luck, I think, is on their side for one important reason, the times that we live in, the spread of democracy and most important thing the media, the satellite media that covers every where and sends it all over the world. The satellite news media has changed the Arab world forever. People know that even the smallest movement will be covered by somebody. The rulers, most of them so far, want to be appeared as tolerant to freedom of speech and demonstrators. They want to appear democratic.

Quality Control And World Politics

In business, we use the word QC or quality control as often as we use vending machines. Quality control and Root Cause Analysis are synonymous to modern and current business practices. The reason is to ensure that we are doing what we are supposed to do in order for us, businesses, to get the job done, and done right. I think we need to create such a mechanism in world politics and international relations. Quality control will help politicians to do a better job in understanding other cultures’ sociopolitical dimensions. In accordance to what I wrote in "Mission" many mishaps in world politics happen when we, people, politicians, etc, misunderstand a cultural dimension to a reaction or a decision from another party or country. The UN is a perfect world body that we can use as a pilot for this program. The whole world is at the UN and having a department that would filter and interpret information upon request would be a great first step. Of course I do not have all the answers as to how this QC would really help but I'm sure that if the political class in every country creates a mechanism for more intercontinental understanding to each other that this mechanism will help to reduce world conflicts. Each country should consider the rest of the world as it own customers , potential customers or prospects and accordingly should be more thorough and civilized to news and issues other wise the customer or customers would go somewhere else. In business, there is a famous statement, if we do not treat them well, someone else will" We also should apply root cause analysis to world conflicts and break down each conflict to it's smallest components to get to the root of the issue in place. This approach will not only help to prevent on going conflicts but will also help to reduce and diffuse future ones. Quality control can be applied to war zones and active conflicts. The approach would make us better conflict managers and reduce human and financial losses.

The New Role of the Armed Forces

Armed conflicts, as we know it, between countries are fazing out. The new armed conflicts now and in the foreseen future will be mostly between countries and armed groups or terrorists that want to change the status quo through armed struggle. We see it now between, almost, the whole world and Al-Qaeda militant group that ironically and loosely speaking has offices in many countries, or mountains. Before the Second World War we saw in Nazi Germany an armed militant organization seizing power, though through elections in the beginning, and turning the country into a state terrorist. I do not expect, at all, that Al Qaeda will seize power in a country and turns it to state terror organization although they were doing it in Afghanistan before the US intervention and under the Taliban regime. After World War Two, we witnessed terror groups such as the Japanese Red Army, Bader-Meinhof in Germany, and The Red Falangists in Italy who were defeated only when states saw their danger to the civilized world and the modern state system. These organizations claim a philosophy but believe in destruction as a way for change. Though in the above countries, those groups could easily have become political parties, with no terrorism of course, and pursued political agendas. However their purpose was not to be in the system but to destroy it. The examples above are for groups who did not want and do not want, in case of Al-Qaeda, to be a part of a civilized process for change, but as a hammer to destroy. Such organizations can not be handled through dialogue but through war. It happens now in Iraq and it happened in Afghanistan. We have to differentiate the above groups from other groups such as the PLO in Palestine and Argon in Israel, who used the armed struggle to free their countries. Once liberated, they turned to regular political process. Both used war to achieve independence and used what we describe now as terror in modern day language. But once independence is achieved or become achievable, they succeeded to make the transition. Other example is in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was the head of what used to be called a terror organization. He went to jail and came out as the new president of the new South Africa and his party became the ruling party in South Africa.

Iran 2005, By Jamil Shawwa

Iran is a strange country in The Middle East. When I say strange, that is strange to the Arabs and from the Arabs. For thousands of years the relationship between the Persians and the Arabs has never been good. They invaded each other, mostly from the part of the Persians before Islam. After Islam arrived and spread all over the current Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa, Iran or Persia became part of the Islamic Empire. Persia contributed to the religion and then created its own sect, Shiite, with people in neighboring Iraq. The Shiites are those who believe that Ali, the cousin of Prophet Muhammad, should have succeeded the prophet as Islam khalifa and not the Prophets’ successor Abu-Bakr Al Sediq. A milestone in the political relations between the Arabs and the Persians came some thousand and so years ago when a famous Persian family known as Al Baramekah became political consultants to Amir Al Momeneen, the ruler, Haroon Al Rashid in Iraq. Al Rashid was the head of the Islamic empire and he employed Al Barameka to be his political advisers. Their influence spread all over and one of them, Jaafer Al Barmaki became Al Rashid Prime Minster. To make the story short, Al Rrashid felt their influence and got information that they were trying to take over the regime, then Al Rshid acted and executed them and by that he expelled the Persian influence from the Arabic political system. I think, since then, the doubts between these two, the Muslim sunnis Arabs, and the Muslim shiites persians became strenuous. In the modern, current, time, the relationship is the same, doubtful and suspicious. Iran during the Shah took over Islands that the United Arab Emirates proclaim as their own and never returned them back to the UAE. Iran under the Islamic Shiite regime continues on this policy. Iraq under Saddam invaded Iran to proclaim the area of Shat al Arab as its area and after 10 years of unexplainable, or explainable war, the situation returned between the two as it was before the war! Iran and the Shiite Arabs created a militant organization in Lebanon by the name of Hezbollah which took on itself to have a quasi army side by side of the Lebanese army. Hezbollah claims that its military wing is there to fight Israel and expels it from all the Lebanese territories. Iran wants, among other things some say, to be to Shiites as Israel was and is to the Jewish people. A Mecca where Shiite can get support and influence. The Arabs Shiite, to a great extent, are proud enough not to accept Iran's influence. However Iran has it's supporters among Shiites in Lebanon and Iraq, a little in Bahrain and maybe among the Shiite in Saudi Arabia. The Arab regimes did not help to cordon the Iranian influence among the Shiite Arabs.They, the regimes, have treated the Shiites as second class citizens and not as true Muslims or at least first class citizens like the rest. Going back few years, or a century, when Khomeini lead the Iranian revolution that ended the regime of Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranians sent signals that they want to export their revolution, of course, the Iranians are experts in scaring the Arabs, used these tactics to elevate their prestige in the area and to position themselves as the guardian of the Arab Shiite and maybe Islam as they see it. The main influence Iran has at this moment is through two streams, in Lebanon, the Hezbollah organization and in Iraq through Al Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiite, or at least a big fraction of them. How the relations between these two Muslim powers, the Sunni Muslim and the Shiite Muslim, will evolve is something difficult to predict. But if history gives us any lesson it would be that these powers will not trust each other unless both of them become democratized, and I mean really democratic, and start to cooperate as regular neighboring states and not as two entities trying to have a win-lose situation. As for The relation between the USA and Iran which has also been strange, to say the least, it also could improve if Iran changes it's government format from combative to democratic. The Turkish example could apply to Iran where an Islamic government rules a secular system. The government in Turkey was elected and the people Can in an election oust it and put another party.

Jerusalem 2005

Jerusalem, the holy land , the land of peace, the heart of The Middle East, the heart of the Muslim world, the Jewish world and the Christian world. The capital of the State of Israel and the future capital of the State of Palestine, side by side of the state of Israel. What a city! Basically the whole world, almost, is there. Most people in the world have some sort of a stake in this great city. It is however meant to be under two dominant powers, the Muslims and the Jews. Before 1967, Jerusalem was under the Jordanian power, and then became under the Israeli power who later on annexed it as its capital. There is an Arab population in Jerusalem, Muslims and Christians besides the Jewish people. This city should continue to be open to everyone who wants to visit. I remember when I used to go and eat the knafa at Ja'afer in the old city or when I used to have a delicious piece or two of Riches Pizza and then getting an excellent cup of coffee and Strawberry torte at Max Cafe across the street from the Hamashbir. Having said that, peace will not survive in that area unless the Palestinians are given their share of the city. The Arabs there have the right to have Jerusalem as their capital as Israel does. Both people can administer their respective areas and all people can visit the holy places there. It was in the news that a group of religious Jews tried to go to Al Aqsa mosque area and were confronted by emotional Muslims who felt violated by that visit. The reaction was normal because the Arabs do not have any say in their city and because that part is occupied. If the situation was normal and both the Arabs and the Jews have their share and both rule their areas that situation would not and should not have happened. All religions should be welcomed to visit but not occupy or intimidate the other. If we do not respect the rights of the Jewish, Christians and Muslims people in the holy city, peace will not take place. It's time for all of us to act with civility and not hatred.

The Arab Republics

We talked about the Arab monarchies, now we will address the Arab republics. The Arab Republics are tasting the sweet flavor the monarchs have had for a long time, which is to pass the leadership in their countries to their sons. We saw it happening in Syria and we see signs of it in Libya and Egypt. In a perfectly normal democratic system, it's not abnormal to have the son of a president becoming a president. It happened here in The USA and it's ok to happen anywhere else. The only issue is to have a democratic free system that allows such a transition to happen by the free and transparent choice of the people. The late Syrian president Assad continued to deny until the end that he was giving the presidency to his son while everyone knew that the process was in action and just ready for the declaration. This system is deceiving and of course not democratic. It resembles a thief with the stolen goods trying to deny that he stole anything. The presidents know, maybe, that a free election, probably, will not bring their kids to power, they also might feel jealous from their counterparts the monarchs who can have their kids inherit the power without any fanfare, sort of. The solution is simple: Democracy. Create countries with institutions and elected bodies. Have the three branches of government applying the system of checks and balances. I foresee the French style governing as an example for the Arab republics where you have an elected president and an elected parliament. The head of the wining party in the parliament forms the government. The president governs with the support of his prime minister who is also elected. Neither can do the job in the French example without the support of the other. Personally, I prefer the US system but for some reason I see the French example closer to the Arabic mentality of governing.

General Motors

"What is good for General Motors is good for The United States". How far this statement has become from reality. The General is in a mess. They do not know where to go and in what direction. According to articles in car magazines and Fortune, GM is in great need to continue to reinvent itself, be more creative, more artistic in it's products lines. 

Basically it needs to make nicer cars with better quality. A great example of GM's failure is the Saturn brand. I have read that since it's inception, this division has been losing money, it did not break even and did not make a difference in competing with the Japanese cars. The question that begs an answer: Why? why it's still in production?? Another problem GM faces is that it did not reinvent itself in the way that Mercedes and BMW did. 

GM still belongs to the glory past of the fifties and the sixties. New generations and younger ones do not feel connected with this company as they do with BMW, Mercedes and even Chrysler with it's new lines of attractive cars. Look at an ugly example of GM's lack of imagination and artistic touch, the Aztec, I believe I have it spelled correctly. It is so ugly that I can not see how can anyone come up with such a car! GM needs to trim itself, be a lean company, close losing divisions and just hire someone on the helm that can grab it from the deep hole it put itself in and just be again be a great innovative organization.

The Arab Monarchies

Historically, the Arab Monarchies have played a stabilizing role in the Middle East politics. They have been the voice of reason and moderation in the midst of the nationalistic turmoil that engulfed the region in the fifties and the sixties. Then, the monarchies stood against Nasser of Egypt in his quest to overturn the Arab regimes into ones that embodied his version of Arab Nationalism. They also have neutralized the religious extremes by getting them under their tent and provided them with a legitimacy. They also were, specially in Saudi Arabia the voice of Islam to the world. At that time the Shiite power did not exist and Iran, the protector of militant Shiite was part of the western alliance. Now, time has come to evaluate the Arab Monarchies. In a time where democracy spreads , the Arab people have aspirations for freedom and human rights, and their is a need for The United States to ensure that the Middle East exports oil and not extremism, the Arab monarchies need to be developed. The most problematic monarchies are in the Gulf, the oil area, where a historic alliance between religion and politics has shown signs of ineffectiveness in the era of the Internet and the information age. Most of the fanatics that use Islam as an umbrella for their actions come from the Gulf and particularly from Saudi Arabia. In Saudi, there is a political and spiritual and social vacuum. There are frustrations and aspirations. Rich kids from will known families are drawn towards extremism because of the vacuum and the suppression they live in. The Kingdom can not continue with it's current alliance. It has to address the aspirations of it's people, it has to open up the place and start the steps towards a constitutional monarchy. This monarchy will continue to protect the Holly places in Mecca and Medina, and will continue to provide the moral leadership to it's people and to billions of Muslims around the world who come every year for pilgrimage. It's difficult to imagine Saudi Arabia opening up completely but it's imaginable to have a government that is accountable to a an elected body. In Jordan and Morocco I see steps and a momentum building up towards constitutional monarchy faster than the Gulf countries or in particular faster than Saudi Arabia. In Jordan, a final solution to the Palestinian question will provide a healthy ground towards that goal as well as in Morocco where a democratic North Africa will help the monarchy there to work towards full parliament accountability. I personally believe that the monarchies can survive the winds of change and very much so can be a great stabilizer in their upcoming fledging democracy. At some point those monarchies will resemble the one in England with a little more authority.
PS: For more relevant information check my previous article.

Why did we elect George W. Bush? One Year after..

We the American people have elected George Bush twice mainly for the same reason; he is one of us, a regular guy, no complications, not much polishing around to show off as someone he is not. We have defeated Al Gore in 2000 because, among other reasons, he came across as an elitist, and sometimes as a bully thinking that he deserves the position just because who he is and because of his career. He came across as a bully when he walked towards George Bush in one of the debates, he looked threatening and annoying. We did not like it. Bush came across in that debate as your regular all American guy that will do his best to protect his home from the enemies either at home or abroad. We also defeated John Kerry almost for the same reasons; as we did with Gore, add to the list being married to a woman that felt cold and disconnected. Remember how she forgot where she was, which state, and then made the face as if they are all the same to her. Kerry also sounded as a preacher more than your regular guy. Add to that his running mate, John Edwards that really did not cut it for him neither in the south nor anywhere else, and Kerry's association with the Hollywood crowd and ignoring the base. Bush managed to have a wide base of people ranging from the corporations to the regular Joe with six packs. He tapped into the religious feelings of the people, deep into their very souls. We also are at war and this is another reason that many people felt strongly the need to stick with their guy. Clinton before Bush came across as your regular guy. It is the persona that got these two elected and reelected. This is just an observation, it's neither a Republican nor a Democrat’s: We also did not like the fact that Kerry and Edwards were so ungracious that they mentioned Dick Cheney's gay daughter. It was a cheap shot.

Note: During the Democratic Party primaries, Time Magazine put Kerry on its cover and if I recall questioned whether or not he can win. I sent a comment on that cover to Time, was not published, where I gave my opinion on the cover and on Time covers in general. I said that the way Kerry paused show either he was constipated, did not like the Time photographer, he was looking at his wife or he knew that he is not going to win. Now you know why Time did not publish the comment.

The Great Transformation

The Arab countries should lead the Muslim world including the Arabs into the 21 Century mentality of cooperation, democracy, free market, the rights of individuals including women and minorities. As I mentioned in previous articles or thoughts, we should start from the very beginning, from the curriculums that are in our schools and universities. Those curriculums that focus on struggle and conflict as a way of life for our people rather than just recording history as it was, unbiased. The outlook to the world should be different, rather than being the victim and wait for help, we should stand as many Asian countries did , and before that Europe and The US, and create a political, social and business models that focus on the future. It all should start by creating grass root social movements that use peaceful means to achieve democracy. A real democracy with freely elected parliaments. The process started in Iraq, with all its deficiencies, and it should continue all over. Syria and Egypt probably will be next to start the democratization process. The Middle Eastern countries should not be afraid of the political movements that use religion as its mantra or slogan. As long as everybody agrees that changes must be achieved peacefully. Turkey is another example. The ruling party now is an Islamic party that does not want or at least agrees that it's possible to combine the beliefs of the religion with the requirements of the modern state. In Europe and the US we have seen conservative parties rule with strong faith background. The Republican Party in the US and the Christian Democrats in Europe. The most important is that we must embrace faith as a private bond between the individual and God, not to be imposed on others, and must guarantee the freedom of religion. Evil and extremism will continue as mankind continues. But it's possible to transform the society where extremism can no longer penetrate the disgruntled layers of its people; that extremism will continue to live on the fringes. Disgruntled people would eventually know that change is possible through the ballots and not the bullets. The bottom line is that the Middle East, the cradle of civilizations and the great three divine religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam should not be lift alone or labeled as the bad son. It should be included in the civilized world. It's the job of the Middle Eastern countries to ensure its place in the train of civility. Last but not least, both Israel and Palestine are integral parts of the new Middle East. The Middle Eastern countries should continue to be separate political entities but can cooperate and integrate policies, especially economic policies through institutions similar to that of the European Union.

TBN, Aljazeera, 700 Club and Almanar-Common Ground

The most common ground among the above news networks is one thing: Incitement. There job is to incite and not to inform and analyze. They of course report news, and they analyze the news but the main goal is to incite and play on the sensitive cords and the strongest feelings, which are religion and national emotions. Both Almanar and TBN represent some sort of a religion message. TBN, the spread of Christianity as they see it and try to convert as many people as possible and of course fund raising and collect money from the masses. TBN has been attacking Islam in every way possible riding the wave of individuals and organizations using Islam to commit acts of terror. Almanar's job, as the mouthpiece of the Iranian backed Lebanese militant party Hezbollah, is to spread hatred, incitement, and honestly making the great religion Islam looks bad in the eyes of the world. Aljazeera on the other hand tries to play both the religion and the nationalistic emetic. It preaches pan Arabism and Islam in the same time. It attacks most of the Arab regimes but it does not offer clear unbiased views of the news. It magnifies the chasm between the Arabs and the west but it does not try to bridge the gap. The thing is we do not ask these news networks to act as reformers but we ask them not to increase the hatred among their followers. TBN and the 700 Club of Pat Robertson job should not attack Islam in every occasion. They should instead to focus on the message of Christianity of peace and tolerance. Almanar should not attack the west, the Jewish but it should report the news and analyze. Aljazeera should take the example of CNN and become a professional news organization and not just a mouthpiece for hatred. The world is full of other examples but I chose those four organizations because of their prominence, if I can use this word, among their followers.

What if ?

What if ?
What if peace spreads in the Middle East. What if we teach our children to love thy neighbor, first, and foremost to love themselves. What if we work to live and enjoy life and not just to survive. What if we learn to love life. What if we thrive and work hard and smart and take vacations and travel. What if we negotiate our differences rather than having suicide bombers. What if we teach our kids to accept Israel as a state in the Middle East and to understand that the Jewish people have a state there that can live side by side with the state of Palestine and the rest of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Countries. What if we change our attitude, mentality from the mentality of every thing that comes from the west is evil, and the west is out there to get us to the mentality of prosperity and cooperation with everybody. What if we stop inciting in our media and just report the news as they are and then if we like to comment then we do that without stepping and ignoring the facts. What if we teach our kids the real Islam, the religion of tolerance and peace. What if we all stand against terrorism and those behind the terrorists. What if we tell all those disgruntled people to stop using this great religion, Islam, in acts and actions that far from it is true learning and beliefs. What if we have the chance to elect freely our rulers. What if we can create due process to our citizens. What if we stop terrorizing the people in our police stations. What if I can drive my car from the city I was raised Gaza all the way through Tel-Aviv and Haifa, Beirut, Damascus to Turkey and then to Europe. Alternatively, what if a family in Israel drives its car all along the Mediterranean to Casablanca and then through the ferry to Spain. What if?

The Palestinian Israeli Conflict

The Palestinian Israeli conflict can and will be resolved when both Palestinians and Israelis do the following:

1-Recognize as a matter of destiny the point of no return that both are destined to live together in that strip of land called Israel and Palestine.
2-Both countries must have viable and internationally recognized borders.
3-Both Israel and Palestine must move on and get over two issues: the refugees and the settlements. Both issues are bargaining chips to get to the final status for Palestine. The Palestinian refugees can not come back and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be redirected to settle inside the state of Israel.
4-Jerusalem should be an open city and a capital for both countries.

Lebanon 2005

Until recently, I continued to believe that there is a country called Lebanon. I mean by country, a government, institutions, people, defense forces, etc. But I changed my mind. Looking back at the history of this beautiful land, we can see that it's people have been famous of being merchants of services, all kind of services. This land called Lebanon has the best food in the middle east, the sexiest women, nicest nature, but it does not have a country! Since independence, Lebanon had two authorities, the formal one, the government, and a militia, that decided for whatever reason, to maintain an army parallel to the formal one. The current example is Hizbullah and the formal government. The Lebanese are famous of trade, they have been trading their country and their existence since the mid fifties to whoever pays more or protects more. The Lebanese people never found a common ground to agree on to form a country and government based on institutions; their system is based on strange formula to share power among the religious groups. They used to say, Lebanon strength is in it's weakness. This statement proved to be one of the most deceiving political statements ever created. Lebanon's weakness, and the fact that you can buy it's leaders, have wrecked this beautiful land and killed it's leaders, last, but maybe not least, Rafiq Al Hariri, the former prime minister, and a Sunni leader. Lebanon could have been the Switzerland of the East, both countries have different ethnic groups, Switzerland has even different languages, yet it managed to found a formula to exist as a country and gained an international recognition of it's unique status. In Lebanon everyone speaks the same language, Arabic, and they speak other languages. The Israeli Arab conflict has affected Lebanon since the start. Lebanon has couple of hundred of thousands Palestinian refugees in it's areas, some are militarized. Lebanon, more than any border Arab country with Israel, has been torn apart by this conflict, the Arab Israeli. From now on, to the unforeseen future, there is a piece of land in the middle east called Lebanon. One day this land might produce an example of a transparent democracy in the area.

Mission

This site will focus on making the news clearer to both Americans and Arabs. We will analyze the news and as much as we can, we will say why this media outlet or person said what they said or what they should have said or done instead. We will clear the misunderstandings that happen daily because we do not understand each others' culture and psychology. We will analyze the psychology behind the behavior or the news. Basically, we will strip the news to its smallest component and run a root cause analysis to get to the bottom line. Although the focus will be on open source news that affect both Arab and American audiences, nevertheless, we might analyze any piece of information from anywhere in the world. I will provide two simple examples from both the US and the Arab world on how news could have been better and smarter if put in its right cultural and psychological perspective. Both the New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the most respected newspapers in the US, kept referring to the former Iraqi president as Hussein, in their headlines. In fact no one in the Middle East or in Iraq ever referred to the former president as Hussein, but as Saddam. This , some might say, is a ridicules example, but it's not. It's so small but important in its dimension. Elakhbar, an Egyptian newspaper, put a cartoon the other day for a man, clearly a western or American from the way the cartoonist drown it, telling a friend that” he is going to Egypt to buy few votes in the upcoming presidential elections because he heard that in Egypt you can bought some people” this cartoon is a stereotypical of how the Arab establishment in general and not only in Egypt have injected the people of ideas that the west is out to get them. A little background here, Elakhbar considers that anyone or most candidates who will or might run against president Mubarak of Egypt are either traitors or easy for the west to buy. Moreover, it’s the fear factor that the political politburo in the Middle East have injected its people with against the west in particular.Now, hear this: fanatics are in part a product of that environment that I have just mentioned above. They are born hearing all sorts of stuff against the west, in government run TVs, papers, schools, movies, etc. When those brain washed individuals go out and commit crimes against humanities, Arab governments look around and wonder what happened?