Despite difficulties, Israelis and Palestinians have reached an agreement. However, peace will not be achieved tomorrow. The belligerents have agreed only to carry out a publicity campaign to foster peace. It seemed irrelevant, but it was another stone in the bridge between both peoples. It was a promise for the future.
In order to enhance this approach, my friends of the Peres Center for Peace and the Palestinian Economic Forum met with other leaders of advertising agencies and me to think about the most effective way to promote peace. In the 60’s, a publicity campaign managed to raise people’s awareness on environmental issues in the United States. Why not considering that it could equally foster the people’s support for peace? We need a unique message suitable for both peoples.
Conceiving this campaign was not easy but I was proud to present it to the World Economic Forum in Jordan. Today, we are trying to raise funds to disseminate these messages.
The efforts made by Israelis and Palestinians in favor of this campaign raised new hopes again. Advertising does not replace the efforts for peace but should be able to mobilize the people because without people’s support we will not achieve any objective.

As an advertising agent who ran an advertising agency network in the Middle East for several years and who still visits the region on a regular basis, the stupidity of the United States to try to control the Arabic opinion since September 11, 2001, is still surprising for me. Recently, Charney’s report, requested by the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated to carry out an advertising campaign at a cost of 10 million dollars to fight against the anti-Americanism in the Arabic world. However, what this region needs the least is a campaign of this kind.
I personally witnessed the skepticism that triggered the appointment of Karen Hughes as responsible for public diplomacy. It is time to focus on the actions and put an end to the speeches. All the Arabic population feel now that the United States is a hypocrite. In these conditions, any advertising campaign would only be seen as a new means to hide the truth. The money for this campaign would be better used to implement useful programs for the Arabic society. University programs for students’ exchanges would be more interesting for a region where 65% of the population is under 25 years. As indicated by Keith Reinhard, president of Business for Diplomatic Action, university exchanges contribute somehow to break up the recruiting networks of Bin Laden.
The American business sector still fascinates Arab youngsters. Hence, an important role could be played. It could contribute with resources as well as its pragmatism.

The challenges faced by our nations oblige the intellectuals of all professions to adopt reasonable positions with regard to a number of urgent matters. We, liberal Arabs, issued an urgent appeal against the fanatical simplification of the matters pertaining to the region. We want to bring to an end the major appeals of great words such as “democracy” or “resistance” that so far have led to fragmentation and perpetuation of the defeat.
The liberalism that we adopted expresses our loyalty to the modern and visionary values and should not be seen as an expression of loyalty to the United States. It is true that we are inspired by the West. However, we do not forget the work of the sheikh Mohammed Abdu and his disciples. Neither have we forgotten that there have been governments from the West that have turned their backs on those values in the name of material benefits. A distinction between the ideas and their origin has to be made. Contrary to neoconservatives, we think that democracy is the completion of a project and not a starting point. We welcome the fall of dictators but foreign intervention is not the most appropriate way to achieve that.
Regardless of what might be considered about the Syrian regime, we cannot wish Damascus to experience what Baghdad did. We feel that the West should also recover its values, respect the law and turn its back on fundamentalism.
We condemn the statements supporting the martyrs as we condemn the violations of the rights of the Palestinians by Israel. We denounce the condemns against globalization when our region needs investments, but we also condemn the silence that surrounds the fate of the poorest. The Arabic countries should get interested in new ideas.

George W. Bush has placed democracy in the focus of his policy in the Middle East, a policy that has triggered the opposition from adversaries like Bachar El Assad, and pro-North Americans dictators like Hosni Mubarak. Bush might boast about the victory in the elections of Iraq and Palestine, but a vote is not an election.
Certainly, the United States is skeptical about the democratic process in Egypt, Tunisia, or the municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, it odes not share the same skepticism with regard to the Islamic movements that participate in the elections, when the only interest that the Islamists see in democracy is the control of the minority by the majority and the possibility to get to power. Once in power, they dream of establishing theocracies and suppress the right to vote. Today, the Bush administration is very condescending with the Hezbollah, with Hamas or with the Muslim Brothers. Condoleezza Rice, likewise, invited the members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to the White House. On the other hand, many people have interpreted the appointment of Laith Kubba of the National Endowment for Democracy as the spokesman of Ibrahim Al-Jaafari as a support to its Islamist program.
If true democracies are to be achieved, the democratic parties have to be supported, not the parties that want to use democracy.

When Suharto lies on its deathbed and its successor in Indonesia is visiting Washington, it is interesting to observe the changes in the Far East since 1967. That year, the United States fought in Viet Nam, China carried out its Cultural Revolution, Suharto ascended to power fighting against the communist guerrilla and the only democracy in the region was Japan. Nowadays, democracy has been widely expanded across that region, which also enjoys a great economic growth. That democratic revolution was the result of the changes in the US policies made by Ronald Reagan.
It began with the people’s revolution in the Philippines after the assassination of Benigno Aquino. Paul Wolfowitz and George P. Shultz then convinced Reagan not to support Marcos anymore. In the next two years, the United States demanded the implementation of reforms in South Korea and Taiwan. This showed that the promotion of democracy was not a new policy. Establishing a democracy in Asia was difficult and chaotic. Negotiating the crisis of development was a delicate matter. It was not easy for the United States to handle those crises, especially because some of the elected governments had policies contrary to our interests. Nevertheless, the Indonesian example proved that democracy was not contrary to the Asian values or to Islam, as some people believed. And we should not forget either that today Asia is much friendlier to us than when Suharto took power.