Western politicians, scholars and journalists often adopt doublespeak in relation to the Middle East. We all know that this is a rather obvious attempt to deceive Western publics into thinking that the West is morally on the right side of history, but sadly many Western publics are oblivious to this reality. Indeed, those who neither read nor travel do not know that many of the English words these chaps employ mean one thing in the West and something totally different in reference to the Middle East. Therefore I thought it might be informative to deconstruct some of the key words many Westerners are using today to discuss the revolutionary climate in the Middle East. Please feel free to help me expand upon this guide by adding extra words and definitions in the comments section.
According Merriam Webster, this term means "stability produced by [an] even distribution of weight on each side of the vertical axis” or “equipoise between contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements". The word has a similar meaning in relation to politics. In theory the word balance is supposed to mean that there are limits placed on key institutions of political power. For example, the government of the United States was created as a system of checks and balances to prevent any one institution from monopolizing power. However this is not the case in practice, where power throughout every institution is fixed in the hands of Zionists and corporate lobbyists. The system does not have an anti-lobbyist check on lobbyists. Neither is there balance within the institution of lobbyism, as an anti-Zionist lobby does not even exist. In fact there is no ideological check against Zionism anywhere in the American government. When Westerners use the word balance in relation to the Middle East the meaning is consistent with the American practice. In other words balance means the grossly uneven regional distribution of power to those who support the interests of Tel Aviv and American corporations.
This term has mostly been used in a negative sense since the Arab revolutions began more than two months ago. Western politicians and journalists employ the term non-ideological to describe a person or group that does not challenge American foreign policy and the illegal occupation of Palestine. Of course such persons or groups are not really non-ideological. They just embrace the same ideology as Washington. But from our perspective this usage actually makes sense in some ways. Merriam Webster defines ideological as "relating to or concerned with ideas”. Therefore anybody in the Middle East who embodies the Western definition of non-ideological is obviously not thinking, or at least not very well.
Quite similar to the term non-ideological, any Arab or Muslim person who does not challenge American foreign policy and the illegal occupation of Palestine is also described as a moderate. This person is usually either a Western educated businessperson with financial links to Washington or a brutal and autocratic ruler who receives millions, if not billions, of dollars in military aid as a reward for his supposed moderation. Of course this aid is often used to repress his own people. While Merriam Webster primarily describes moderate as "avoiding extremes of behavior or expression: temperate," this definition does not really help us very much because only one extreme exists in the West—it used to be Communism but now it is Islamism—and every other space is occupied by Zionism. However from our perspective, the dictionary’s secondary definition actually fits quite well here: "having average or less than average quality: mediocre". This characterization works pretty well for almost every person whom the West describes as a ‘moderate’ in the Middle East.
When applied to the Middle East this term signifies precisely the opposite of what it means in the West. Merriam Webster describes stability as “the quality, state, or degree of being stable, the strength to stand or endure: firmness” but in the Middle East it means any system of government that brutally represses its people so successfully that they are too frightened to say or do anything contrary to the state despite the drastic inequality in that country. As a result people's spirits are broken and they struggle to endure. That said, this state of does affairs does in a way ensure stability according to the above definition because Americans remain firmly committed to being oblivious and obese, neither traveling nor even reading the news but instead driving their gas guzzling SUVs two blocks in order to consume super sized hamburger meals from the drivethru.
According to Merriam Webster, the word vacuum means the "state or condition resembling a vacuum (the emptiness of space): void". In politics the term is often used to describe the sudden absence of a power structure. Of course the original power structure had to be respected and legitimate at some point, otherwise there would not be an absence without it. Whereas in the Middle East, the word vacuum is used to describe any society where a once a brutal dictatorship has been removed and power starts being distributed to the people. Yes we all know that in the West this condition is called democracy but there are several reasons why the powers that be cannot admit to this in the Middle East. First of all, these chaps have spent too much time telling our publics that Middle Easterners are not capable of democracy. Secondly, the American Congress has been dying for an excuse to continue campaigning against the threat from al Qaeda so that they can get reelected in 2012. And finally, this also serves as a precaution in case anybody dares to think about mobilizing a challenge to the power of Zionists and corporate lobbyists. And now thanks to President Obama, they still have GitMo in case we decide to try anyway.