As British and French imperialism ebbed following the end of the Second World War, America became the main outside player in Arab affairs.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests.
During the Cold War, America took sides not only in disputes between Arab countries, but also in debates within them.
In most of the European countries - France stands out in its resistance to this particular form of American cultural imperialism - the national film industries were forced onto the defensive after the war by such binding agreements.
Today it is becoming increasingly apparent to thoughtful Americans that we cannot fight the forces and ideas of imperialism abroad and maintain any form of imperialism at home. The war has done this to our thinking.
England and France were rivals, not only on the continent, but in the West Indies, in India, and in Europe.
The war changed everybody's attitude. We became international almost overnight.
It is a kind of ego booster, the way Egypt's winning the 1973 war, in the first stages, was an uplift. But I did not find when I spoke to people that the war in Iraq was seen as the major issue in American-Arab relations.
The patchwork political landscape of the Arab world - the client monarchies, degenerated nationalist dictatorships, and the imperial petrol stations known as the Gulf states - was the outcome of an intensive experience of Anglo-French colonialism.
Americans are not intrinsically imperial, but we ended up dominant by default: Europe disappeared after the Second World War, the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, so here we are.
You know, Arabs are critical of United States foreign policy, but they also associate the U.S. with democratic principles and opportunity.
No opposing quotes found.