US Public Diplomacy Versus U.S. Public Execution

Dec 21, 2006

By Ali Al-Hail

In principle, the U.S. public diplomacy for the Middle East was undoubtedly, based on good intentions. But "road to hell is quit often, paved with good intentions".

Last year, as the Bush administration had eventually, felt that its deeds in the Middle East had caused too many bruises to its politics, it launched a public diplomacy campaign, as a last resolute in order to save what could be saved.

Though, the damage that done in the region by the Bush administration-Israeli Lobby incited wars, had been both, too massive, and too late to have it "salvaged", according to Zogby's latest report. However, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes who was left by the Bush administration to cleanup its mess in the region tried her best to do a good job out of a bad job. Many argue that, to the rattling Israeli lobby in the decision making 'patches' in the U.S. business was, as usual.

While Hughes was striving to "selling" the Bush administration's politics to the Arab World, in particular the Israeli Lobby was spontaneously, pressurizing toward even more drastic measures against Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, and beyond in the middle east against Iran, and Afghanistan under the banner of fabricated "war on terror" (Own Bennett Jones, BBC online, June 13, 2006). How could Hughes' public diplomacy of winning minds and hearts in the Arab and Muslim Worlds succeed?

While the Israeli \ American slaughtering machine (hardly, any difference between both) kill, injure, maim, and bomb innocent civilians in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.

As late as 2001, many U.S. thinkers have been attempting to get this message through to the American 'manipulated' taxpayers by the Israeli Lobby that, the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East is wrong, unfair, and biased for Israel against Arabs, and Muslims (click on the line for example; to Paul Findley, Naomi Chomsky, Bruce Kennedy, and lately, former president carter). Oddly enough, even Fernandez, an official at the State Department's public diplomacy on Al Jazeera TV last month, went off the script, and had bitterly, criticized the Bush administration in Iraq.

There's always been a strong feeling since the launching of public diplomacy which is, every value U.S. public diplomacy was attempting to build, get destroyed by the Israeli Lobby, the behind closed door runners of the neocons in the Bush administration, the pentagon, and the State Department. Thus, incredibility cannot be remedied by worse incredibility. Observes presume, as do many that, no positive change would appear on the horizon, as long as the Israeli lobby, according to Paul Findley and others predominantly, influence the U.S. decision maskers.

Since Lyndon Johnson, as Paul Findley asserts that, the Israeli Lobby has been until these days, in control of any decision made related to Israel. The Israeli Lobby doesn't tend to distinguish between criticism of Israeli brutal politics against Palestinian civilians, and criticism of the holocaust. Both are treated as anti-Semitism. This creed is clearly, manifested in American foreign policies in the Middle East.

Two U.S. professors were given a hard time by the Israeli lobby, as they had recently, criticized in a study the negative impact of the Israeli Lobby upon U.S. decision making. Another attempt to defeat the taboo came from former President Carter last month, when he said there had been no criticism of Israeli actions in the U.S. In the same way President Carter has publicly, been portrayed as anti-Semitism.

As all that seems to be on board, on Friday December 15th, the Southern Korean new Secretary General of the UN, Ban Moon took the oath at the UN in new York apparently, after he had been approved of by the Israeli Lobby, as do many presume. Since Moon confirmed the Israeli Lobby's three dogmas, no denial of the holocaust, no surrender to Iran's nuclear program, and yes to intervening into Darfur-oil rich region of the Sudan, he had obviously, found no obstacle on his way to the UN. In order to put facts in its contexts, Annan, the outgoing UN chief followed exactly, the same three comandments, and many more.

This obedience had made him Secretary-General of the UN for two periods.


Professor, Dr. Ali Al-Hail, Professor of Mass Communication, Twice Fulbright Award Winner, Fulbright Visiting Scholar, and Board Member of AUSACE ASC, IABD, NEBAA, BEA, IMDA and EAJMC American Associations. Can be contacted via pdaah90@hotmail.com