United Arab Emirates
Port paranoia
The negative responses to the DPW deal are an excuse to curry favor with a public that has been persuaded that the world is locked in a clash of civilizations. This clash theory has lost favor in some intellectual circles now that Iraq has become such a political and human disaster. But although it's a simplistic and incorrect response to the horrors of 9/11, some politicians and journalists still find the clash to be a convenient theory, one that hides other motives.
by James M. Wall
Fear wins fake ports debate
 Hostility towards Arabs and Muslims is more widespread than it was in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. This negative animus provided the tinder for the "Dubai port controversy" and was, in turn, fuelled by the shameful way this issue was debated.James J. Zogby |
Sheikh Zayed's legacy
There were striking contrasts that could be observed in the US press treatment of the recent passing away of two historic Arab figures: Sheikh Zayed Ben Sultan Al Nahayan, president of the United Arab Emirates, and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.
While Arafat had been declared irrelevant by the Bush administration and shunned by the US during the past three years, the Palestinian leader's illness and death occupied the front pages of US dailies and endless discussion on network television.
Sheikh Zayed, on the other hand, was a trusted friend and key ally of the US for many decades, a visionary political leader and a humanitarian with an impressive record of relief and reconstruction assistance. His death, nevertheless, received only scant attention in the US newspapers and on television.
While US commentators were befuddled by the outpouring of Palestinian emotion over Arafat, at the same time, a US reviewer of the foreign press appeared not to comprehend why news of Sheikh Zayed's death overshadowed coverage of President George Bush's reelection in most of the Arab world's media.
