The 'blowback' which I predicted in the comments in the last post (by which conservative-leaning Arab writers pick up the MEMRI line and introduce it into the Arab media where it hadn't previously existed) begins with a column by al Hayat commentator (and frequent al Hurra guest) Salama Nima'at, who discusses the MEMRI position at length while claiming that neither campaign wants to touch such an inflammatory matter. Nimaat offers no real further analysis of the story, which he attributes to the New York Post and MEMRI, while leaving pretty much unchallenged the Post's claim that the tape was meant to help Kerry.
Other than that, Arab and Muslim commentators don't seem to be giving much credence to the MEMRI version.
I checked the qal3ati site this morning to see if anyone there was talking about the MEMRI piece, but didn't find anything even there. Maybe later?
Liberal al Hayat columnist Hazem Saghiye begins his piece by saying that "most commentators on the latest Osama bin Laden tape think that the al Qaeda leader "voted".. in the interests of George Bush." But, Saghiye argues, "rather than voting for Bush, bin Laden's message was about completing the project which began in the 1980s... always at the expense of the Palestinians and their issue". Saghiye points out that bin Laden's language was very different than in the past, was more leftist than religious, and was aimed at American arguments and concerns rather than Arab or Muslim ones. His claims to have been radicalized by the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel strike Saghiye as obviously untrue, given bin Laden's well-known personal history and traditional focus on the Arabian peninsula. But with Arafat leaving Palestine, Saghiye muses, perhaps bin Laden is making a bid for leadership of the Palestine issue to widen his anti-American campaign. Bin Laden's interest, then, is to see Bush in the White House to guarantee four more years of a leader who will isolate America from the world.
Ahmad Khashqaji, writing in the Saudi al Watan (via Elaph), also emphasizes the role of Palestine in bin Laden's new rhetorical strategy, again pointing out how this issue allows bin Laden to harness the anger and intensity of vast numbers of Arabs and Muslims who don't otherwise care about his religious message.
Abd al Bari Atwan, in al Quds al Arabi yesterday, wrote that whoever wins on Tuesday, bin Laden has already emerged the winner: if Kerry wins, then bin Laden can claim to have helped defeat Bush; and if Bush wins, bin Laden can say that this is what he preferred - as he did in his March statement which said that Bush's victory would serve the interests of Muslims by ensuring the continuation of America's wars against Arabs and Muslims which would increase hatred of the United States everywhere in the world. Atwan suggests that bin Laden's address to the American people was intended to convince them that al Qaeda's problems are with American policy and not the American people or American freedoms. And Atwan argues that bin Laden believes that he is winning the battle for Arab and Muslim hearts and minds, and that his shift from peripheral Islamist issues (Chechnya, Kosovo, Phillipines, etc..) to Palestine - the core Arab and Muslim issue - reflects an attempt to unify Arabs and Muslims.
I'm sure there will be much more, but I've got to go do some real work!
UPDATE: of all the Arab commentary, most of which - as per Saghiye above - argues that bin Laden favors Bush, MEMRI can only find one column worth translating today: the reliably conservative/pro-Bush Mamoun Fandy (who they describe as a 'progressive'), who predictably writes in al Ahram that bin Laden wants Kerry to win. Should sound good on al Hurra too, Mamoun!
Comments