Rhetoric or policy: Diplomatic faces and masked intentions - Sine Qua Non

Among the foreign policy questions raised by America's involvement in the war in Afghanistan is whether our strategy is to play against the Arab terrorist and fundamentalists' "politics of denial" or to appear to play into the hypocrisy of their diplomacy. As our press and popular culture take a deeper look into Arab society and practice, what we find is not encouraging.

Instead of finding a source of common ground in our "moderate" Arab allies, the United States seems to be inundated with hate spewing from the Arab world - most often under the veil of friendship. Our foreign policy makers appear fooled time and again, while the hate mongers are let off the hook.

In a recent New York Times report, some secrets of the 24-hour Arabic news channel, al Jazeera, were revealed. Far from the bastion of free press it is made out to be by U.S. media, this satellite television station, broadcast from Qatar, is just another clone fomenting hate across the airwaves directed at Americans and Israelis, Christians and Jews.

Although it has been pointed to by "60 Minutes" as "the first Arab news organization that is independent and uncensored," it is financially supported by the rulers of Qatar and, similarly, subscribes to the prevailing anti-American sentiment of the region. Often referring to the war in Afghanistan as the "war against the alleged terrorists," reporters and call-in guests frequently resort to preaching hate against the United States and her friends, most notably our close and unshakable ally - Israel.

Beneath al Jazeera's thin veil of journalistic integrity is the Arab Lord Haw-Haw. Notwithstanding, the myth is pressed and al Jazeera's tactics are praised as "reforming." This raises another question. Is America's good-humored oversight and inability to label things accurately just rhetoric, or is it policy?

Earlier this week Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal said he was "very much encouraged" by Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech indicating America's renewed activity in Middle East peace negotiations. He claimed that it was "time that action be taken in the Middle East to bring the peace process to fruition" so that we might "soothe anti-American feelings in Arab countries." If this is such an important aspect of Middle East stability and, therefore, in every Arab nation's interest, why has the most influential nation in the region done nothing more than demand others' involvement?

Indeed, while Palestinian spokespeople like Hanan Ashrawi claim Israeli "occupation of Palestinian land" is a reason for continued violence, they have not yet offered a solution of their own to the problem. When the Camp David talks fell through last year after many offers and plans both from the U.S. and Israel, there was not a single Palestinian counter-proposal.

Although immediately following the talks' disintegration, President Bill Clinton put the blame on Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat, his anger quickly dissipated and the United States promptly went back to its negotiation mode. Even as recently as the beginning of this week, when American envoys were en route to facilitate peace talks, Palestinians scoffed at America by greeting them with a fresh roadside suicide bombing directed at Israeli soldiers. This is juxtaposed to other Arab leaders like al-Faisal, calling for American help. Which statement do they intend to make? What do they really mean?

This two-faced strategy continues to permeate Arab diplomacy, when their leaders say something out of one side of their mouth and quickly follow it up with an opposing action from the other. The real problem, though, is that the U.S. continues to play into it.

Or do we? Recently, a Saudi prince offered New York City ten million dollars in the relief effort for the Trade Center tragedy. Yet it was not even a year ago at a pan-Muslim conference that Saudi Arabia pledged $500 million to aid in the Intifada against Israel, our closest and only truly trustworthy ally in the region. To his everlasting credit, Mayor Rudy Guiliani honored the memories of those murdered by promptly returning the bribe to the prince.

Nonetheless, our official policy, as dictated by President George Bush, remains unclear. He has pledged to "find the other terrorists who threaten America and our friends and to fight these evil ones." Yet, despite Palestinian terrorists who routinely "threaten our friend" Israel every day with violence, mayhem and murder, there is no talk of dismantling the Palestinian Authority that tacitly and openly, supports this evil.

This begs the question: Do our words really represent our intentions? If we mean to make good on our promises, then let's do it. Are our promises to Israel and our other friends just empty words? When, in response to hearing President Bush speak, a U.S. Army soldier says he "can't wait to go out and kill some enemy," should the Administration query him further as to who the enemy is? If this Administration is not clear about who the good guys and bad guys are, then we run the very real risk of frittering away our credibility capital. We cannot afford to have our rhetoric say one thing while our policy does another.

Words are precious and they mean a great deal. However, the Bush Administration is in danger of poisoning the well of words by allowing straightforward and sound policy to fall victim to the rhetoric and "politics of denial" encountered in the Arab world. We cannot afford to dissipate the irreplaceable enthusiasm vital to win the war against all terrorism.