The idea that Arabia is best run by Arabs is no more palatable to Western leaders today than it was to Napoleon or Churchill.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What holds an Arab leader in power is a mixture of violence and prestige. Both President Assad and King Hussein were felt to have defended Arab interests against the world. That, in the end, is more important than what they wear on their head.
Were there peace and justice in the Middle East, the Arabs would no more need their tinhorn dictators than they would their corpulent princes.
It is not necessary to agree with the Arab point of view about their own history, but it is foolish to ignore it.
The world is lousy with Arab princes. And if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book.
You know, Arabs are critical of United States foreign policy, but they also associate the U.S. with democratic principles and opportunity.
You in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That's obviously bogus.
The autocracies of the Arab world have been as economically destructive as they've been politically repressive.
The anchors of the Arab consensus have long been Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and both are now weakened forces in Arab politics and diplomacy.
As someone from, and directly involved with, this part of the world, I am convinced Arabs are qualified to regain their glorious past.
In the West, you have always associated the Islamic faith 100 percent with Arab culture. This in itself is a fundamentalist attitude and it is mistaken.
No opposing quotes found.