Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Election fever
MEMRI has today published some interesting opinions from Arab columnists, including these selected excerpts:
"... (T)he first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation.
"(T)he Arab League ... wanted the Iraqi opposition to be invited to the Sharm Al-Sheikh conference, ...other Arab oppositions have not been invited to any Arab League meeting ... throughout the history of the Arab peoples.
"The Arab concern for … the legitimacy of Iraq's upcoming elections ... is outrageous ... we do not understand why this concern does not apply to the many Arab countries that do not permit their minorities to announce their existence, let alone their right to [political] representation.
"... (C)ertain countries today are treating the Iraqis with the cheapest kind of political hypocrisy, even though no one heard any particular Arab protest during the time of the regime of the mass graves [i.e. during Saddam's rule].
"[Arab regimes act] as if history is not happening as long as they do not acknowledge its existence and do not announce it in the papers and on the television channels, [all of] which they control. Can anybody ask the Arab League why the media in occupied Iraq and Palestine enjoy freedom under the occupation, while the media in the other Arab countries do not?"
Can anybody ask CNN International why they recently showed an excerpt of a hooded and armed "insurgent" declaring that elections could take place in Iraq after American forces leave, but not before? The airheaded presenters then proceeded to seriously discuss the possibility of election postponement - without offering any comment or criticism on the flagrantly disingenuous statement shown in the excerpt.
Such discussion is in much the same vein as the joyful highlighting of the Iraqi election postponement "issue" taking place in the Washington Post and New York Times. Buried in the pages of those newspapers are sensible opinions, like that of Charles Krauthammer, :
"In 1864, 11 of the 36 (US) states did not participate in the presidential election. ...
"In 1868, three years after the security situation had, shall we say, stabilized, three states (not insignificant ones: Texas, Virginia and Mississippi) did not participate in the election...
"The (Iraq) election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs -- barely 20 percent of the population -- decide they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule ... then they... forfeit their chance to shape and participate in the new Iraq.
"Americans are dying right now to give them that very chance.
And that of William Safire:
"So far, voters who support implanting freedom in the Middle East have won three in a row, electing President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, the American ally John Howard in Australia, and George Bush here.
"Now pessimists are trying desperately to call off the fourth election - the one scheduled for late January in Iraq to elect a 275-member national assembly that will write a constitution - lest they lose that vote, too."
The mere fact of an election taking place in Iraq will be treated as a "loss" by the liberal international conglomerate insanely opposed to George Bush.
That is why they will do their utmost to portray the election as a failure, should it take place, no matter what the circumstances and no matter what the damage for the poor people of Iraq, who have to live and die with the effects of this supremely cold cynicism, and with the comfort and encouragement it incubates for the murderers amongst them.
