The best intentions

For a while at least, Newsweek seemed like a genuine news magazine, at least on some superficial level.  Then I read this:

The Egyptian border debacle is just one more reminder that the law of unintended consequences tends to rule in the Middle East, despite the best intentions of U.S. policymakers. It is also an illustration of just how difficult it will be for George W. Bush to realize his hopes for a "West Bank First" strategy that aims to turn Gazan public opinion against the Islamists--much less his goal of a comprehensive peace agreement. The Bush administration's strategy since Hamas swept to power in local elections two years ago has been to squeeze the Islamists by depriving them of the aid money the Palestinian economy usually depends on to operate. For a while at least, the tactic seemed to be working, at least on some superficial level.

Yes, there's just no telling what those wacky Palestinians will do.  We try to show them that we only have the best intentions for them by strangling them economically and fomenting a civil war, helping to bring the already-devastated Gaza Strip to the brink of "total collapse".   And how do they respond?  Do they sit around candles in their darkened homes, hungry, huddled under blankets, discussing our wisdom and benevolence?  Do they understand that their suffering is just a precursor to a bright future of peace and democracy, all thanks to us, and bear it gladly?  No, of course not; in a baffling display of ingratitude, they blow up the border wall with Egypt and race through desperately before the hole in their cage of pain is patched up again.  But what can you do?  This is the Middle East, after all!

I imagine a Palestinian journalist somewhere writing about this same bewildering phenomenon as applied to Israel and the United States.  Militant Palestinian groups have repeatedly tried to illustrate their good intentions and desire for peace by killing Israelis in suicide bombings and lobbing homemade missiles haphazardly across the border.  Now, it should be obvious to anyone that the sole purpose here is to create an opening for peace by making the occupation untenable—but Israel and the US actually turn around and use it as a justification for further attacks and economic strangulation!  No one saw that coming.  But what can you do?  After all, that's the law of unintended consequences for you.

Comments

[Jonathan Schwarz]

I like the way the article is headlined "The PR War in Gaza." Thank goodness there are no PR wars in New York at the Newsweek headquarters.

[SteveB]

Ah, so that's why I don't write for Newsweek. I saw the Gaza breakout as an inspiring example of people power (aided by the judicious application of explosives). Obviously not the correct point of view if you're hoping to mold American public opinion.

And to be fair to Newsweek, they probably meant "unexpected consequences" rather than "unintended consequences". Popular resistance to genocidal policies is something the ruling class never expects, no matter how many times it happens.

[John Caruso]

Jon: Yeah, I appreciated the framing too. It makes you wonder if that hypothetical Middle Eastern journalist would have written an article on 9/11 examining how the killing of thousands of people factored into the PR war between al Qaeda and the US.

[SteveB]

"Israeli crackdowns have only strengthened the Islamists' image" is the 21st-century equivalent of those 60's-era liberal cold warriors who worried that images of police dogs attacking black children in the streets of Selma would only help the communists.

I have this nagging sense that there might be some other reason not to starve people or attack them with dogs, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[John Caruso]

Steve: Tantalizing, isn't it. If Palestinians or blacks were human beings, it would be easier to understand.

[SteveB]

One more thought on the PR "debacle" that has Newsweek so worried: were they so concerned about the bad PR effects of the Israeli seige before the wall came tumbling down?

If not, it suggests that they're not really worried about teh brown folk watching the seige and concluding that "Israel is evil", but rather that they're worried that people will see a collapsed Israeli wall and draw this dangerous conclusion: "Resistance to Israel is possible."

As good imperialists, they don't really care if people around the world hate us, as long as they fear us. In the same way, the PR "debacle" of Iraq was not that it led more muslims to hate the U.S., but that it exposed the U.S. weakness and vulnerability to attack, once it was on muslim soil.

[Save the Oocytes]

I like the way you quote Caligula in support of U.S. foreign policy. If his example doesn't win over the evil brown people, nothing will.