The western images of the Middle East surely obscure the reality of the ordinary culture and people fundamentals ethics. It is true middle East is known of unrest ; however, this is one of their down fall that should not be used to pin them down but see better ways of dealing with it. Much Western popular culture and literature has portrayed Muslims and Arabs negatively over the past two hundred years. This has happened in the absence of really constructive, optimistic, and correct images of most Middle East populace that include ordinary people but also achievers and heroes, persons who are extraordinary people in Middle East. Western opinion and images of Islam and Muslims has long been subjugated by negativity and confrontation. In Europe, Islam has been a direct military danger for centuries. Christian leaders of the westerners saw Mohammed in a lowly status; this was prejudice and judgmental. European colonialism entrenched in Islamic territory. Europe had an undeviating experience with Islam and Middle East people, but never received it in Europe. This has been undoing undertaking of the European and has encouraged some enmities that have been going on. In the United States, there has been slight experience or welcoming of Islam and other Middle East population up to the nineteen eighties (Awanohara & Ali, pp 23, 1992).
Currently, only one to two percentages of Muslims comprise the US population, three percentages in the United Kingdom and seven to ten percentages of France population and between five and ten percentages of the other EC nations. The US embassy captive crisis defined much of US’s sensitivity of political Islam. In the nineteenth century, US opinion and images continued to be taken over by extremist, militant, and political differences. These were toughened by the attacks on United States military bases and embassy’s in Africa, and the Middle East (Anderson, pp 3-13, 1992). The general notion was that the most important public face of Islam and Muslim was militant and anti-American; these notions are not the realities. The September ninth attacks in the United States dramatically amplified the visibility of Islam terror aspects. The image of Islam and Muslim’s cultures is not something that many people thought about earlier to ninth eleven attacks. However, after 9/11, a unique new cluster of Americans sought out literatures on Arabs and Muslims, and there surfaced many news TV programs and talk radio and lectures on Muslims and Islam, according to Akbar Ahmed, Chairperson of Islamic Studies at US University (Cole, pp 205, 2009). Experts, some genuine and some doubtful as to credentials, came out to speak on Islam, often inaccurately, in media interviews and shows. The biggest query on most American’s mentalities was “Why do Islamic and Muslims hate them so much?” the then President George Bush early in the instantaneous days after nine eleven incidence made a concerted attempt at communicating to the nation that Islam was a religious conviction of peace and that the enormous majority of Muslims are not terrorists or anti-American. Yet, in the subsequent years, that communication has not been sufficiently reinforced by the American administration. The terrorist acts and activities are condemnable in the strongest term possible; however, the ordinary people should not be demonized and the images should portray the reality of the situation.
Most people’s’ opinion and images of Islam and Muslims in the US and Europe are shaped by media exposure. The media have been sluggish to cover everyday Muslims and Islamic culture, preferring to illustrate graphic images of gun-toting militants, fiery imams, and anti-American Protestants, with sensation and actions carried out in the name of Islam. This is an ethical argument perception, which need some sense of review so as the reality is not obscured by this coverage. Middle East is just like westerners in many ways only their beliefs and some cultural undertakings need review. The images of demonizing them should be abolished, and reality be shown so that people have correct images of them. Images or coverage like “If it bleeds, it rules” of news, directors will lead news exposure with horror attacks, anti-American manifestations, and hostage imagery to shock and involve jaded viewers. The lack of a countering observation contributes to the choice of these stereotypes and people begin to believe them. There is contention about the Middle East undertakings. Meanwhile, the true Arab humanity is going through the incredibly real and physical procedure of standing up to oppressive regimes. The multitudes on television are in reality composed of a number of exceptional individuals choosing to danger their lives (Wike, pp 1-2, 2006). There are numerous different narratives, a multiplicity of ideologies, different nations, and different circumstances. Speaking for these individuals is a way of silencing them. Social media currently gives everybody with Internet access the chance to participate in determining their own narrative; it is a weapon against generalist and essentialist approaches that exterminate international perceptive. The blog swindle points out how hard it is to pay attention to the other, when it is so simple to talk off ones own reflection and take no notice of other voices. The familiar is contented and comfortable, but the familiar will not get anyone’s progress. The discussion between the West and the Arab universe; both dissimilar regions, both multifaceted entities; should take put on the foundation of representative narratives that confront what people suppose to know. One responsible entity should be conventional media personnel who, by just and accurate coverage at the cost of sensationalism, could be actual mediators rather than encouraging conflict. The images the western portray of Middle East are obscure of reality since they dwell only on the evil side forgetting the other side of the coin. It is very essential that people should be sensitized about the violet nature of others; however, the real situation should be spelled out to give the true picture.
It is hard to decide to which extent these misperceptions about the Middle East were real or just political proclamation to achieve precise goals – like boosting the protection budget, or using anti-communism as a punitive factor in domestic political affairs. However, it seems obvious that, over time, the overestimated expressions of the Soviet Threat turned out to be the common knowledge, and was taken gravely without going through the sting of checking the facts. In this case, the sensitivity – or the deception of perception – of reality was further essential than reality itself. This is evidence that the West used the situation of the Middle East to propagate their budgets and make them selves have the rest of the world’s sympathy. The west used the situation of the Middle East to gain unnecessary empathy while the innocent are being frustrated and persecuted for nothing. Relative to other cultural groups, Muslims and other Arabs in the West do not tend to converse and write literature or call in to reports organizations or TV programs when anti-Arab and anti-Muslim broadcasts are made. This contrast with the Hispanic, Jewish, or African American societies, which are much more out spoken; however, Muslims do not desire to appear openly significant of associate Muslims, lest they be noted as contributing to the widespread forces of criticism (Solomon, pp 23, 2002).
The finance policy brings up the second beginning point of any foreign policy: perceptions. Foreign strategy deals with foreign persons, foreign regimes, and political persons. It involves dealing with other traditions, cultures, values, and religions. The perception of the other essentially is being formed by our perception of understanding, of our own individuality. Feelings of inadequacy or dominance, of cultural distinctiveness, or of uncertainty do shape the way far-off policy conducted. The United States will pact with the British government in a different way than with the Soviet, Saudi, or Islamic. And no one in Islamabad, Managua, or Harare or would critically anticipate to be given on comparable footing with Washington`. Obviously, there is a connection between culture and authority involved here: different civilizations can hardly consider each other in a disinterested way, as long as their gainful, political, armed services and ideological authority are awfully deranged. Foreign relatives involve interaction between dramatis personae with very differing authority and flaw. They occur in the framework of history, with its civilization and experiences of warfare, power, colonialism, captivity, and the thrash about alongside them. And these encounters of unequal relationships have weakened any ability to distinguish the other as equal. Perception is tinted by a sense of ones own dominance, by suspicion, ethnocentrism, mental blockades paternalism, arrogance, aggressiveness or an emotion of frustration and weakness. Equality is uncommon, either in the reality of authority relations or in the shared perception (Konkret, pp 290, 1993).
Therefore, dealing with unfamiliar policy includes the inconsistent situation that, in conjecture and worldwide law, all States and ruling authorities are equal, while in realism both their material and mentality power are not. Paying no attention to this fact of existence cannot produce a resonance base for unfamiliar policy analyses. At the instance, foreign policy procedures are not amazing objective, like mechanical changes from "policies" and "interests" into. They are based on condemnation and perceptions, complexion of both individuals, interests, and the sight of the adversary. Foreign policy and foreign policy an undertaking has to both consider account of the realities and their opinions. The obvious predicament is that people can never see realities devoid of the same time analyzing them.
It is true that the Western opinion of the Middle East has ever obscured the reality of existence. Diversity is a great tool of existence when it is given relevant publicity and correct forums. The westerns perceptions are subjective and unfair; they need proper considerations and perceptions.