On the contrary Rumzi, “Anit-Americanism” is NOT the result of our capitalism; it is the result of our ignorance regarding Arab culture. American foreign policy seeks to measure the Middle East by it own yardstick. We Americans look at these countries in terms of how “progressive” they are in comparison to ourselves, how close they resemble ourselves. All too little are we searching for an understanding of the differences between us.

This is where open discussion and education opportunities come into play. They are the means of bridging this gap of misunderstanding. In this way, we, as Americans, can understand where the hatred towards us comes. While I agree that hatred of Americans among Arabs is directed at American Policy, it is Americans as a whole who are the recipients of this hatred. Naturally, foreign policy in the Middle East must change in order to stem this “Anit-Americanism”, but only through open discussion and education can this change occur. It is the ignorance of Arab culture in our foreign policy that results in these sentiments. So “assuming that antiamericanism developed for lack of an open discussion with bloggers and educaiton exchange opportunities like the fulbright” is NOT misleading, but exactly the reason why there is “Anit-Americanism”.

Lynch always attempts to change the stereotyped image of the Arab sphere as this monolethic entity with only one dimension by identifying the different waves of political inclinations However, what is problematic is Lynch seeing anti americanisim sentiments across these spheres as something that SHOULD and CAN be changed by public diplomacy wether through the web or satellite. By focusing on ways to enhance the image of the US through diplomacy, Lynch is solving the symptoms but not the desease iteslf. products. These sentiments have developed over tim not because of the bad marketing of the US, but because of the bad product it keeps offering to the region. Assuming that antiamericanism developed for lack of an open discussion with bloggers and educaiton exchange opportunities like the fulbright is a bit misleading, as these attitudes are directed toward the US government policy and not the US people, culture or values. In order for the US to raise its popularity it should first realise that in the arab spheres negative reactions are a result of critical and rational thinking. Then it should start changing its policies and implement them away from hypocracy and double standards. This is the only way that these sentiments will ever change!

however, i strongly disagree with several pieces of his assessment.

First, the phase “public sphere enterprise” phase. marc is assuming that blogging is a static thing, that hundreds of people in Jordan discussing and exchanging ideas will not lead to anything. that all this collaboration isn’t spurring new ideas, despite its very definition as a growing, moving, evolving thing.

in fact, in one of the smallest blogospheres in the middle east, jordan is seeing new, exciting collective actions being carried out by bloggers; bloggers becoming activists, and activists becoming bloggers, and these new relationships, partnerships, and attempts to organize collectively are having an impact. already.

also, the assumption that democracy is the ultimate goal – that as americans they’ve reached The Destination, and as backwards arabs, they are yet to arrive – is terribly arrogant and orientalist. get off the “democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread” horse, and you may see new political models that work more efficiently than the American democratic model, where partisan politics sabotage any possibility for *real* change. If what happened to Iraq is American democracy, believe me, we don’t want it either.

i think if you wait 10-20 years to look for the impacts, you’ve already closed yourself off, and slated yourself for seeing the political changes that you expect, and not what is really happening. community, culture isn’t static. don’t force it through your typical models. remove the old theoretical lens, and you’ll see new and exciting things.

Your final point about honest exchange, shouldn’t be framed so obviously towards American foreign policy. You cite the video competition “Democracy is…” as an example, and yet, it is obviously steered towards a very specific agenda, and already loses its potential for an “open and honest exchange.”

I think you are much closer to a real point when Marc discusses listen as a key point of diplomacy. Too bad it took Obama to say it, before anyone else would. A key point to listening though, is not being afraid of hearing things you don’t necessarily want to hear and completely disagree with.

Thanks for the summary, Darren.