By Barry Rubin
The Aztecs of Mexico believed that if they didn't sacrifice human victims each day the sun wouldn't come up the next morning. This seems to be the principle governing how Western elites blame Israel for everything that goes on in the Middle East and propose as a remedy even more U.S. concessions.
A remarkable example is how the New York Times tries to explain what is in fact a very important development in the region in an article entitled, “Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades.” Wow! I could have told you that back in 2000.
But why has it faded? Could it be because of such long-term problems as these regimes' corruption, incompetence, rejection of reform, and inability to break from radical stances? Could it be that the fact that these regimes keep feeding anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, militant interpretations of Islam, and extremism generally rebound against them?
And might it be that radical forces—like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah—have shown, with help from the United States and Europe, that hardline positions and violence pay?
Could it possibly be, in the shorter term, that the apologies, concessions, and refusal to confront the extremist Islamists have emboldened them and demoralized the relative moderates?
No. Guess who is blamed?
“With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.”
These experts have obviously not been following the news. Seems to me that Israel did agree to freeze building on settlements (the word “settlement-building” implies Israel is building more settlements and expanding existing ones which isn’t true). Remember that speech Secretary of State Hilary Clinton just made in Jerusalem praising this concession?
Oh, that’s supposedly part of the problem also.
The great promise of President Obama’s June speech in Cairo, officials and political commentators said, was severely damaged when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her recent trip to the Middle East, praised as “unprecedented” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to slow the building of settlements. That left the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt — the two regional American allies most committed to negotiating with Israel — exposed, embarrassed and weakened, [Egyptian] political analysts and government officials said.
So let me get this straight. Really! If Israel doesn’t freeze construction on settlements, that’s bad. But if Israel does freeze construction on settlements and the U.S. government praises this concession, well that’s bad, too.
I guess the only thing Israel could do right in these people’s eyes is to disappear off the map entirely. Oh? Yes, I guess so.
But seriously, the problem isn’t that the Obama Administration is too soft on Israel but that it is too soft on, well, let’s let the Times explain it:
“[Egypt and Saudi Arabia] have been challenged by Iran, opposed by much smaller Arab neighbors, mocked by Syria and defied by influential non-state groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.”
Yes, these are the enemy. They are the enemy of almost all the Arab states, they are the enemy of Israel, they are the enemy of America, and they’re even the enemy of Europe. If the United States doesn’t work against the Iran-led bloc, they are going to challenge, oppose, mock and defy everyone else in the region plus the West.
And those whom they challenge, oppose, mock, and defy are going to lose influence and lose heart.
So, let’s see now, might the following have something to do with the decline of Egyptian-Saudi influence:
--Hamas takes over the Gaza Strip, attacks Israel, world stands by and eventually boos Israel.
--Iran develops nuclear weapons. West offers engagement and seems afraid even to increase sanctions.
--Iran and Syria kill American soldiers in Iraq. The United States looks the other way.
--Palestinian Authority rebuffs U.S. calls to come to negotiating table and not to push the Goldstone report at the UN. (Notice only Israel does the “rebuffing” and the Times can never bring itself to allow criticism of the Palestinian leadership.)
--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan rebuff U.S. calls to make some concession to Israel in exchange of freeze.
--U.S. and European governments don’t back moderate March 14 coalition in Lebanon so it has to give in to Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.
And these are just the highlights! Is this really all so hard to understand? And why is the establishment’s answer to bad mistakes in U.S. Middle East policy usually the demand that it make even worse ones?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Professor Barry Rubin - "Understanding Middle East Politics'" from YIISA on Vimeo.
This is a lecture I gave recently at Yale University. But the title above the video indicates only a small part of the talk at the end. The main purpose was to explain how Middle East politics works and why so few in the West understand this. Hope you find it interesting. [And please subscribe to my blog].
Why is the Other Side Winning? Lebanon's New Government As a Case Study
By Barry Rubin
The moderate March 14 movement, in the words of the New York Times, won “a clear victory” in Lebanon’s June elections, while the Hizballah-led alliance suffered a “loss.”
Why, then will the forces that won a majority, again in the phrasing of the Times, “have little chance to dictate the agenda?”
On the surface, things are bad enough. The March 14 movement will have fifteen cabinet seats, Hizballah and its friends (all of whom are allied because they are clients of Iran and Syria) get ten, and the other five will be controlled by President Michel Suleiman “who has struggled to maintain neutrality,” says the Times.
Now to the fine print which makes things look far worse.
Suleiman is Syria’s man. That’s why he got the job. Almost all the time, and perhaps all the time, he will back the Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah line.
Then there’s Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, who up until recently was the toughest, bravest March 14 leader. Reading the writing on the wall, he has jumped ship and tried to switch sides, at least to some extent. So that tilts the situation even more in favor of Hizballah-Iran-Syria.
But why is this happening, why do those who won the elections have to give veto power to those who lost? Why will this government be unable to disarm Hizballah, stop arms’ smuggling across its borders, prosecute those responsible for terrorist attacks within Islam, prevent Hizballah from attacking Israel and thus dragging Lebanon into war whenever it wants, and be too friendly to the West?
On the surface, of course, this passivity is necessary to maintain the peace. Lebanon has always had a weak government, and the specter of civil war hangs over the country based on past experience.
The full answer, however, is two-fold and these factors interlock.
The first point is that Iran and Syria give lavish support to their side. They provide lots of money, weapons, and political support. They virtually never betray their friends. They are strong and ready to intimidate their enemies.
And the second point regards the opposite side: The United States and Europe don’t subsidize their “clients.” U.S. aid money goes to the Lebanese army which is arguably now under Iranian-Syrian control if it came to a crisis. Their political support is unreliable, either because they don’t do anything or they actually make concessions to Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. They usually do betray their friends, are apologetic, and prone to engage in appeasement.
Quick, who would you depend on to keep you alive politically and personally if you were a Lebanese politician?
If the March 14 coalition tried to disarm Hizballah’s militia, stop it from controlling the south, block it from attacking Israel, interdict all the arms’ smuggling from Syria, or do lots of other things, Iran, Syria, and Hizballah along with their other local allies would smite them with a mighty blow.
But if Hizballah took over neighborhoods, ignored the government, made fools out of the UN forces which are supposedly policing them (or even attack them in a deniable way), the United States and Europe would do nothing.
Is it really so hard to understand, then, why things are going the way they are in Lebanon, or in the Middle East generally for that matter?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
The moderate March 14 movement, in the words of the New York Times, won “a clear victory” in Lebanon’s June elections, while the Hizballah-led alliance suffered a “loss.”
Why, then will the forces that won a majority, again in the phrasing of the Times, “have little chance to dictate the agenda?”
On the surface, things are bad enough. The March 14 movement will have fifteen cabinet seats, Hizballah and its friends (all of whom are allied because they are clients of Iran and Syria) get ten, and the other five will be controlled by President Michel Suleiman “who has struggled to maintain neutrality,” says the Times.
Now to the fine print which makes things look far worse.
Suleiman is Syria’s man. That’s why he got the job. Almost all the time, and perhaps all the time, he will back the Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah line.
Then there’s Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, who up until recently was the toughest, bravest March 14 leader. Reading the writing on the wall, he has jumped ship and tried to switch sides, at least to some extent. So that tilts the situation even more in favor of Hizballah-Iran-Syria.
But why is this happening, why do those who won the elections have to give veto power to those who lost? Why will this government be unable to disarm Hizballah, stop arms’ smuggling across its borders, prosecute those responsible for terrorist attacks within Islam, prevent Hizballah from attacking Israel and thus dragging Lebanon into war whenever it wants, and be too friendly to the West?
On the surface, of course, this passivity is necessary to maintain the peace. Lebanon has always had a weak government, and the specter of civil war hangs over the country based on past experience.
The full answer, however, is two-fold and these factors interlock.
The first point is that Iran and Syria give lavish support to their side. They provide lots of money, weapons, and political support. They virtually never betray their friends. They are strong and ready to intimidate their enemies.
And the second point regards the opposite side: The United States and Europe don’t subsidize their “clients.” U.S. aid money goes to the Lebanese army which is arguably now under Iranian-Syrian control if it came to a crisis. Their political support is unreliable, either because they don’t do anything or they actually make concessions to Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. They usually do betray their friends, are apologetic, and prone to engage in appeasement.
Quick, who would you depend on to keep you alive politically and personally if you were a Lebanese politician?
If the March 14 coalition tried to disarm Hizballah’s militia, stop it from controlling the south, block it from attacking Israel, interdict all the arms’ smuggling from Syria, or do lots of other things, Iran, Syria, and Hizballah along with their other local allies would smite them with a mighty blow.
But if Hizballah took over neighborhoods, ignored the government, made fools out of the UN forces which are supposedly policing them (or even attack them in a deniable way), the United States and Europe would do nothing.
Is it really so hard to understand, then, why things are going the way they are in Lebanon, or in the Middle East generally for that matter?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
How to Order Military Equipment from Iran, Not a Joke
[Please subscribe. To my blog, not the Iranian arms sales company]
By Barry Rubin
Want to start an Islamist revolution? Looking for a good weapons' supplier in Iran? Look no further as you can go to their arms' sales site, Really, this isn't a joke. They're advertising their line of arms. "Professionalism is our Career," is the company motto.
Yes, it's Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The site explains:
"WE have more than eight decades of industrial experiences in the field of manufacturing and supply of various types of defense products and employing 20000 specialized personnel. So this organization is a leading and innovative part of country’s industry and has a comprehensive role as an industrial main pole and motive engine for a portion of industrial and software production of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
You can see their promotional video also but I can't get the page on their chemical weapons to work.
I presume, however, you don't get the Hamas/Hiballah/Iraqi insurgent discount. But good news, they do take credit cards.
It looks as if the site hasn't completely escaped the notice of others as part of it has been hacked, by anti-regime Iranians?
At any rate, we can only look forward to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction coming soon.
By Barry Rubin
Want to start an Islamist revolution? Looking for a good weapons' supplier in Iran? Look no further as you can go to their arms' sales site, Really, this isn't a joke. They're advertising their line of arms. "Professionalism is our Career," is the company motto.
Yes, it's Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The site explains:
"WE have more than eight decades of industrial experiences in the field of manufacturing and supply of various types of defense products and employing 20000 specialized personnel. So this organization is a leading and innovative part of country’s industry and has a comprehensive role as an industrial main pole and motive engine for a portion of industrial and software production of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
You can see their promotional video also but I can't get the page on their chemical weapons to work.
I presume, however, you don't get the Hamas/Hiballah/Iraqi insurgent discount. But good news, they do take credit cards.
It looks as if the site hasn't completely escaped the notice of others as part of it has been hacked, by anti-regime Iranians?
At any rate, we can only look forward to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction coming soon.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What’s the Difference between Middle East and Western Politics? The Race to Moderation versus The Race to Militancy
[Please subscribe to get good reporting and analysis unavailable elsewhere.]
By Barry Rubin
In a democratic country, where politicians need to gain the majority of votes, to win an election requires convincing voters that you are not too extreme. It’s ok to talk about hope and change and reform, but generally speaking the citizens will support a candidate who convinces them he will create some combination of stability and material benefits.
In Middle Eastern dictatorships, and even if there are elections it is the regime’s power which determines the outcome, things are different. Demagoguery and ideology comes from Arab nationalist (or Islamist in Iran and the Gaza Strip) rulers as well as from Islamist oppositions.
In this narrow spectrum ruled by hardline nationalism and religious passions, you are either a hero or a traitor. Militants are heroes; moderates are traitors. And material benefits just aren't important. The virtues are honor and steadfastness, defending Islam and Arabism, resistance to the forces of evil.
Sure, the regime gives material benefits to its elite cadre of supporters but these governments don't mobilize support by promising a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and better health care. And any way the resistance to the forces of imperialism, Zionism, and the infidel come first. No voice, as the Arab saying goes, can be allowed to rise above the din of battle.
Alas, how Middle East politics works! And so if you do something that can be portrayed as moderate--even as a cynical maneuver to benefit your own side--rivals will use this to portray you as a traitor. Western observers often write as if people are afraid to speak out lest they be killed. In leading circles however, the more immediate fear is to have your reputation ruined and to be cast out of power.
Imagine for the moment that Syria were to make peace with Israel in exchange for all the Golan Heights. Within days, two-thirds of the population would be demanding a peace divident in terms of more freedom and democracy, threatening the regime's survival. And another two-thirds would be denouncing the rulers as traitors who any way aren't proper Muslims who should be overthrown. A lot of people would be doing both at the same time. The dictatorship's survival would be put in question.
Instead, the Syrian regime thunders about resistance and not surrendering one inch. It supports Hizballah and Hamas and the Iraqi insurgency to kill people. Naturally, the economy is in the dumps. But the regime is wildly popular at home.
Naturally, this inhibits moderation and provokes a race in which everyone tries to prove how militant they are.
This common tactic in Arab politics can also be seen in Iran. The opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi says that the Iranian regime is selling out by talking with the Americans. He criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being too soft on the United States because he expressed “readiness for dialogue” and met personally with non-governmental Americans.
Karroubi said:
"If one-tenth of such a meeting happened at the time of all past government, Islamists would have come onto the streets...to protest the government….National interests should be observed. The national interest is not a matter that different governments can change."
And who’s the enemy here? President Barack Obama, the man who has bent over double-backwards to make Tehran want to engage with him. The problem is not who the American president is but the needs of radical dictatorial regimes in the Middle East
So if Karroubi came to power he’d have to build nuclear weapons and follow anti-American policies because he defines these things to be in the national interest of Iran, and certainly in the regime’s interest, and most certainly of all in his own political interest to stave off accusations that he was too moderate.
The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he can’t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but won’t run in them.
First of all, there won’t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatah’s afraid it won’t win.
Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Let’s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.
Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA
But what is triggering Abbas’s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obama’s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.
Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasn’t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.
This is one of the main reasons why the region is caught in a vicious circle from which Arab governments and Iran don’t escape.
Equally, that’s why when Obama asks Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to make some small concession so he can get a construction on settlements freeze from Israel they turned him down flat.
And that’s why no amount of apology, flattery, or concessions from the United States will moderate radicals or make moderates more outspoken and ready to compromise.
Western politicians generally don't want to face this reality. Instead, they even defend their adversaries' behavior (as the alternative would be to have to confront them.)
Thus, Obama claims, with no conceivable justification, that getting a deal on nuclear weapons, "is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues."
No, the problem is the precise opposite: they have already decided they won't make a deal. One reason for this is that they are all to "settled enough" politically and can ignore any argument that they would be better off if they made a compromise agreement. Another reason is that they want to remain "settled enough" and realize that an agreement to make peace with Israel or dispense with nuclear weapons would leave them worse off.
And when the inexperienced president says things like this, he doesn't understand that he is signalling Iran to stall for an even longer time while it rushes to get nuclear weapons. In other words, Obama is playing right into Iran's hands and sabotaging his own efforts. Sure, he can pretend he's making progress now but what's he going to do in six months?
Or consider Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is generally more realistic, explaining:
"It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."
Sure, but it is in Iran's interest if Tehran believes that having nuclear weapons will raise Islamic fervor and Iranian patriotism at home while intimidating Arab and Western states into appeasing Tehran. It is in Iran's interest if it believes--and in listening to Obama how could it help but believe?--that "very onerous sanctions" are just a bluff and the president is desperate to avoid using them.
These administration arguments are bogus. Most people in the Middle East--whether Arab, Iranian, or Israeli--can see through them easily. The U.S. and European leaders simply miscompehend the Middle East because they keep seeing it in terms of their own world view and behavior.
Here's the real answer: Arab and Iranian politicians put their own survival above making Obama happy every time. If they can use a show of militancy and intransigence, it is all the better for them. And if they can get away with it and not incur any cost from U.S. criticism, punishment, or pressure, then that is an extra incentive to bash U.S. interests and reject peace with Israel.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
In a democratic country, where politicians need to gain the majority of votes, to win an election requires convincing voters that you are not too extreme. It’s ok to talk about hope and change and reform, but generally speaking the citizens will support a candidate who convinces them he will create some combination of stability and material benefits.
In Middle Eastern dictatorships, and even if there are elections it is the regime’s power which determines the outcome, things are different. Demagoguery and ideology comes from Arab nationalist (or Islamist in Iran and the Gaza Strip) rulers as well as from Islamist oppositions.
In this narrow spectrum ruled by hardline nationalism and religious passions, you are either a hero or a traitor. Militants are heroes; moderates are traitors. And material benefits just aren't important. The virtues are honor and steadfastness, defending Islam and Arabism, resistance to the forces of evil.
Sure, the regime gives material benefits to its elite cadre of supporters but these governments don't mobilize support by promising a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and better health care. And any way the resistance to the forces of imperialism, Zionism, and the infidel come first. No voice, as the Arab saying goes, can be allowed to rise above the din of battle.
Alas, how Middle East politics works! And so if you do something that can be portrayed as moderate--even as a cynical maneuver to benefit your own side--rivals will use this to portray you as a traitor. Western observers often write as if people are afraid to speak out lest they be killed. In leading circles however, the more immediate fear is to have your reputation ruined and to be cast out of power.
Imagine for the moment that Syria were to make peace with Israel in exchange for all the Golan Heights. Within days, two-thirds of the population would be demanding a peace divident in terms of more freedom and democracy, threatening the regime's survival. And another two-thirds would be denouncing the rulers as traitors who any way aren't proper Muslims who should be overthrown. A lot of people would be doing both at the same time. The dictatorship's survival would be put in question.
Instead, the Syrian regime thunders about resistance and not surrendering one inch. It supports Hizballah and Hamas and the Iraqi insurgency to kill people. Naturally, the economy is in the dumps. But the regime is wildly popular at home.
Naturally, this inhibits moderation and provokes a race in which everyone tries to prove how militant they are.
This common tactic in Arab politics can also be seen in Iran. The opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi says that the Iranian regime is selling out by talking with the Americans. He criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being too soft on the United States because he expressed “readiness for dialogue” and met personally with non-governmental Americans.
Karroubi said:
"If one-tenth of such a meeting happened at the time of all past government, Islamists would have come onto the streets...to protest the government….National interests should be observed. The national interest is not a matter that different governments can change."
And who’s the enemy here? President Barack Obama, the man who has bent over double-backwards to make Tehran want to engage with him. The problem is not who the American president is but the needs of radical dictatorial regimes in the Middle East
So if Karroubi came to power he’d have to build nuclear weapons and follow anti-American policies because he defines these things to be in the national interest of Iran, and certainly in the regime’s interest, and most certainly of all in his own political interest to stave off accusations that he was too moderate.
The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he can’t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but won’t run in them.
First of all, there won’t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatah’s afraid it won’t win.
Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Let’s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.
Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA
But what is triggering Abbas’s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obama’s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.
Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasn’t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.
This is one of the main reasons why the region is caught in a vicious circle from which Arab governments and Iran don’t escape.
Equally, that’s why when Obama asks Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to make some small concession so he can get a construction on settlements freeze from Israel they turned him down flat.
And that’s why no amount of apology, flattery, or concessions from the United States will moderate radicals or make moderates more outspoken and ready to compromise.
Western politicians generally don't want to face this reality. Instead, they even defend their adversaries' behavior (as the alternative would be to have to confront them.)
Thus, Obama claims, with no conceivable justification, that getting a deal on nuclear weapons, "is going to take time, and part of the challenge that we face is that neither North Korea nor Iran seem to be settled enough politically to make quick decisions on these issues."
No, the problem is the precise opposite: they have already decided they won't make a deal. One reason for this is that they are all to "settled enough" politically and can ignore any argument that they would be better off if they made a compromise agreement. Another reason is that they want to remain "settled enough" and realize that an agreement to make peace with Israel or dispense with nuclear weapons would leave them worse off.
And when the inexperienced president says things like this, he doesn't understand that he is signalling Iran to stall for an even longer time while it rushes to get nuclear weapons. In other words, Obama is playing right into Iran's hands and sabotaging his own efforts. Sure, he can pretend he's making progress now but what's he going to do in six months?
Or consider Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is generally more realistic, explaining:
"It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."
Sure, but it is in Iran's interest if Tehran believes that having nuclear weapons will raise Islamic fervor and Iranian patriotism at home while intimidating Arab and Western states into appeasing Tehran. It is in Iran's interest if it believes--and in listening to Obama how could it help but believe?--that "very onerous sanctions" are just a bluff and the president is desperate to avoid using them.
These administration arguments are bogus. Most people in the Middle East--whether Arab, Iranian, or Israeli--can see through them easily. The U.S. and European leaders simply miscompehend the Middle East because they keep seeing it in terms of their own world view and behavior.
Here's the real answer: Arab and Iranian politicians put their own survival above making Obama happy every time. If they can use a show of militancy and intransigence, it is all the better for them. And if they can get away with it and not incur any cost from U.S. criticism, punishment, or pressure, then that is an extra incentive to bash U.S. interests and reject peace with Israel.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Exclusive! A Case Study: Why Do Western Liberals Support Eastern Illiberals? Bill Clinton Endorses Turkey’s Islamist Regime
Please subscribe and get original coverage like this plus timely analysis of Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, and more.
By Barry Rubin
Without realizing it, Westerners constantly empower Islamism and other reactionary forces in the Muslim-majority countries. Here’s a good example, thanks to a Turkish reader, Okan Altiparmak. Speaking at the Bosphorus Conference in Istanbul, November 2, 2009, former President Bill Clinton thinks he’s being a nice, genial, non-arrogant, sympathetic American while blithely handing out ammunition to an anti-American regime.
As far as Clinton knows, I presume, he is being interviewed by a friendly and liberal-minded Turk. In fact, this man is the head of a construction company known for two things: being close to the regime and—according to one reliable source--disregarding environmental considerations. By the way, it should be mentioned that although Bill holds no official position in everything he says he is reflecting Obama Administration policy, which is of course implemented by his wife, Hilary, the OC (Other Clinton).
Clinton discusses a variety of issues openly but when he comes to Turkey itself the whole content is one of flattering the current regime. He thinks of it as a moderate Islamic-oriented government which proves that you can combine Islamic politics and democracy. I, and many Turks, think of it as an Islamist wolf in moderate sheep’s clothing that is continually narrowing the margin of freedom in Turkey and taking anti-American stances (for example, by supporting Iran and Syria).
But there is no hint that Bill understands any of this. Naturally, if he were to criticize some regime policies, the government wouldn’t like it. The regime, and those who support it, would say that Clinton is an arrogant American bully who wants to tell Turkey what to do.
Yet if he praises the regime--without even a hint of balance, much less criticism--he is still telling Turkey what to do, though unfortunately it is to do things quite dangerous for U.S. interests and regional stability. Moreover, the opposition—which includes a wide spectrum of political views--has good reason to conclude that Clinton and America is against them and pro-regime. This demoralizes them, especially after the lavish favor President Barack Obama has shown to the regime, honoring it with his visit and praising it as a great model in his own speech given in Istanbul.
At the same time, even among those who have voted for the AK, many are nervous about its intentions and wonder whether the regime is as its critics warn. (I've even met members of the party's parliamentary delegation who would like to see U.S. policy be more critical. The approach taken by Clinton and many other in the West helps convince them that it is safe to back the current government. Of course, seeing that U.S. policy supports the regime also makes the army forget any thoughts of pressuring or even overthrowing it some time if things get out of hand.
Yet as far as Bill is concerned, Turkey under the AK party regime is a big success. In the last ten years, he says, Turkey’s role in the world has grown and many of its domestic problems have been solved. He praises the AK’s leaders for moving from the historic secularist state to a society which respects freedom of religious expression.
Actually, secularists have been put on the defensive, facing harassment and also poor job prospects if they hold government jobs. Journalists and media have been intimidated. The small Jewish community is frightened as the government whips up passions which often cross the line from attacks on Israel to inciting antisemitism. I've seen all these things first-hand. Many are scared to criticize the regime, though others show courage, albeit without no encouragement from Western democracies.
In other words, the former U.S. president is praising the destruction of the Kemalist state and society in favor of an increasingly Islamic and Islamist-dominated one. He makes the new Turkey sound like the United States whereas the trend is actually (though one shouldn’t exaggerate it) in the direction of Iran.
What are the other things Bill sees as great accomplishments? The list is strange to say the least.
1. Turkey has a better position in the world. Really? The main forces with which Turkey has improved its relations are Iran, Syria, Sudan, Hamas, and Hizballah. Have U.S.-Turkish or Turkish-European relations improved? No.
2. There is more support for Turkey becoming a member of the European Union. This makes it sound like the Europeans are rewarding the current government with the great prize, so why should any Turk oppose it? Of course, opposition to Turkey’s membership has grown even stronger despite Turkey’s attempts to meet the EU’s demands for reforms. Only recently has it been clear beyond doubt that Turkey will never be admitted into the EU.
3. Turkey has a more mature policy toward Israel, criticizing it when it is wrong and praising it when it acts constructively. There hasn’t been too much praise under the AK, but to Turkish ears this sounds as if Bill is giving U.S. endorsement for the regime’s anti-Israel policies. In effect, Bill is praising the collapse of an alliance which benefited and was supported by the United States.
4. Turkey has made “progress toward building a more just society.” What has the regime done to make Turkey a fairer society? One might argue that things have not gotten much worse but it is ridiculous to say they have gotten better.
Then, his interviewer lays a trap for him by asking: "Turkey will constitute the middle road in the clash of civilizations. How do you see Turkey's place in this role?"
What does this mean in the Turkish context? Not the traditional idea of Turkey being a bridge between east and west in cultural terms—which Turkey was sometimes said to be doing when it was staunchly pro-Western in political terms--but rather the Islamist path as an alternative (a third way) to Communism and capitalism.
Basically, the interviewer is asking subtly whether Clinton will endorse the regime’s Islamist world view! Anyone who has closely followed Islamist rhetoric should understand this point. The question is a virtual paraphrase of the kind of thing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's revolution, used to say all the time.
And Bill falls right into the trap: "You are in a position to help the US and EU understand what is going on with those countries that are predominantly Islamic. You are also in the unique position to explain to the Islamic nations how they are viewed in the West."
In other words, he is telling Turks to define themselves as neutral at best rather than pro-Western. He is arguing that Turkey is better off seeing itself as an Islamic nation acting as a bridge than as a Western ally. More subtly, a Turkish listener sees this as a suggestion to define themselves in Islamist rather than as ethnic Turks. And the whole concept is silly any way since anyone who has really studied the Middle East knows, Arabic speakers never think of Turkey as a role model.
But there’s something far worse here, far far worse! Look at Clinton’s wording: Turkey will help the West understand Islamic countries and tell Islamic countries how the West views them. What’s missing? How about advocating Western values and interests in the Islamic world? Clinton doesn’t tell the Turks to spread democracy or liberalism or the views of the NATO alliance, or even democracy. He instead suggests that they act as the Muslim press agent in the West and the Muslim public relations’ advisor to the Muslims!
Again, this is so startling that it should be underlined: It is as if he is counseling the Turks: abandon the idea that you are part of the West and share the same interests. Think of yourself as mainly Muslims and join the other side.
Now, many anti-regime Turks will view this as a conspiracy, as Washington's way to back the Islamist regime to keep Turkey weak, or—more accurately—because the United States wants to create a model of a “moderate Muslim” regime at the cost of their freedom.
There is some truth in the latter view. But we understand that the main explanation of Bill’s view is simple ignorance. And this is what we too often see in the Obama Administration: praise the “Muslims” meaning praise the Islamists; praise the “Arabs” meaning praise the dictatorships; exalt engagement with Iran by turning your back on the democratic insurgents; and so on.
It is a form of multi-culturalism, telling Third World peoples to be your authentic selves; in this case: don’t be just an imitation of the West as Turks but instead act as real and proper Muslims.
Not only is all this profoundly shocking but it is profoundly shocking that the current U.S. leadership and large portions of the American elite don't realize that it is profoundly shocking.
In the name of apology, modesty, empathy, this is a policy that does terrible evil to the people supposedly being gratified, appeased, and helped. Yes, Turkey is a model, but it’s a model of a badly mistaken U.S. policy that assists a camouflaged advance of anti-American and radical Islamist power under the guise of moderation.
Note: Thanks to Okan Altiparmak, a Turkish filmmaker whose work can be found on his production company's website. He made a video of the interview which he sent to me and provided his thoughts about analyzing it. While the conference was broadcast live on CNN Turk the station’s links to it on Internet don’t work.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
Without realizing it, Westerners constantly empower Islamism and other reactionary forces in the Muslim-majority countries. Here’s a good example, thanks to a Turkish reader, Okan Altiparmak. Speaking at the Bosphorus Conference in Istanbul, November 2, 2009, former President Bill Clinton thinks he’s being a nice, genial, non-arrogant, sympathetic American while blithely handing out ammunition to an anti-American regime.
As far as Clinton knows, I presume, he is being interviewed by a friendly and liberal-minded Turk. In fact, this man is the head of a construction company known for two things: being close to the regime and—according to one reliable source--disregarding environmental considerations. By the way, it should be mentioned that although Bill holds no official position in everything he says he is reflecting Obama Administration policy, which is of course implemented by his wife, Hilary, the OC (Other Clinton).
Clinton discusses a variety of issues openly but when he comes to Turkey itself the whole content is one of flattering the current regime. He thinks of it as a moderate Islamic-oriented government which proves that you can combine Islamic politics and democracy. I, and many Turks, think of it as an Islamist wolf in moderate sheep’s clothing that is continually narrowing the margin of freedom in Turkey and taking anti-American stances (for example, by supporting Iran and Syria).
But there is no hint that Bill understands any of this. Naturally, if he were to criticize some regime policies, the government wouldn’t like it. The regime, and those who support it, would say that Clinton is an arrogant American bully who wants to tell Turkey what to do.
Yet if he praises the regime--without even a hint of balance, much less criticism--he is still telling Turkey what to do, though unfortunately it is to do things quite dangerous for U.S. interests and regional stability. Moreover, the opposition—which includes a wide spectrum of political views--has good reason to conclude that Clinton and America is against them and pro-regime. This demoralizes them, especially after the lavish favor President Barack Obama has shown to the regime, honoring it with his visit and praising it as a great model in his own speech given in Istanbul.
At the same time, even among those who have voted for the AK, many are nervous about its intentions and wonder whether the regime is as its critics warn. (I've even met members of the party's parliamentary delegation who would like to see U.S. policy be more critical. The approach taken by Clinton and many other in the West helps convince them that it is safe to back the current government. Of course, seeing that U.S. policy supports the regime also makes the army forget any thoughts of pressuring or even overthrowing it some time if things get out of hand.
Yet as far as Bill is concerned, Turkey under the AK party regime is a big success. In the last ten years, he says, Turkey’s role in the world has grown and many of its domestic problems have been solved. He praises the AK’s leaders for moving from the historic secularist state to a society which respects freedom of religious expression.
Actually, secularists have been put on the defensive, facing harassment and also poor job prospects if they hold government jobs. Journalists and media have been intimidated. The small Jewish community is frightened as the government whips up passions which often cross the line from attacks on Israel to inciting antisemitism. I've seen all these things first-hand. Many are scared to criticize the regime, though others show courage, albeit without no encouragement from Western democracies.
In other words, the former U.S. president is praising the destruction of the Kemalist state and society in favor of an increasingly Islamic and Islamist-dominated one. He makes the new Turkey sound like the United States whereas the trend is actually (though one shouldn’t exaggerate it) in the direction of Iran.
What are the other things Bill sees as great accomplishments? The list is strange to say the least.
1. Turkey has a better position in the world. Really? The main forces with which Turkey has improved its relations are Iran, Syria, Sudan, Hamas, and Hizballah. Have U.S.-Turkish or Turkish-European relations improved? No.
2. There is more support for Turkey becoming a member of the European Union. This makes it sound like the Europeans are rewarding the current government with the great prize, so why should any Turk oppose it? Of course, opposition to Turkey’s membership has grown even stronger despite Turkey’s attempts to meet the EU’s demands for reforms. Only recently has it been clear beyond doubt that Turkey will never be admitted into the EU.
3. Turkey has a more mature policy toward Israel, criticizing it when it is wrong and praising it when it acts constructively. There hasn’t been too much praise under the AK, but to Turkish ears this sounds as if Bill is giving U.S. endorsement for the regime’s anti-Israel policies. In effect, Bill is praising the collapse of an alliance which benefited and was supported by the United States.
4. Turkey has made “progress toward building a more just society.” What has the regime done to make Turkey a fairer society? One might argue that things have not gotten much worse but it is ridiculous to say they have gotten better.
Then, his interviewer lays a trap for him by asking: "Turkey will constitute the middle road in the clash of civilizations. How do you see Turkey's place in this role?"
What does this mean in the Turkish context? Not the traditional idea of Turkey being a bridge between east and west in cultural terms—which Turkey was sometimes said to be doing when it was staunchly pro-Western in political terms--but rather the Islamist path as an alternative (a third way) to Communism and capitalism.
Basically, the interviewer is asking subtly whether Clinton will endorse the regime’s Islamist world view! Anyone who has closely followed Islamist rhetoric should understand this point. The question is a virtual paraphrase of the kind of thing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's revolution, used to say all the time.
And Bill falls right into the trap: "You are in a position to help the US and EU understand what is going on with those countries that are predominantly Islamic. You are also in the unique position to explain to the Islamic nations how they are viewed in the West."
In other words, he is telling Turks to define themselves as neutral at best rather than pro-Western. He is arguing that Turkey is better off seeing itself as an Islamic nation acting as a bridge than as a Western ally. More subtly, a Turkish listener sees this as a suggestion to define themselves in Islamist rather than as ethnic Turks. And the whole concept is silly any way since anyone who has really studied the Middle East knows, Arabic speakers never think of Turkey as a role model.
But there’s something far worse here, far far worse! Look at Clinton’s wording: Turkey will help the West understand Islamic countries and tell Islamic countries how the West views them. What’s missing? How about advocating Western values and interests in the Islamic world? Clinton doesn’t tell the Turks to spread democracy or liberalism or the views of the NATO alliance, or even democracy. He instead suggests that they act as the Muslim press agent in the West and the Muslim public relations’ advisor to the Muslims!
Again, this is so startling that it should be underlined: It is as if he is counseling the Turks: abandon the idea that you are part of the West and share the same interests. Think of yourself as mainly Muslims and join the other side.
Now, many anti-regime Turks will view this as a conspiracy, as Washington's way to back the Islamist regime to keep Turkey weak, or—more accurately—because the United States wants to create a model of a “moderate Muslim” regime at the cost of their freedom.
There is some truth in the latter view. But we understand that the main explanation of Bill’s view is simple ignorance. And this is what we too often see in the Obama Administration: praise the “Muslims” meaning praise the Islamists; praise the “Arabs” meaning praise the dictatorships; exalt engagement with Iran by turning your back on the democratic insurgents; and so on.
It is a form of multi-culturalism, telling Third World peoples to be your authentic selves; in this case: don’t be just an imitation of the West as Turks but instead act as real and proper Muslims.
Not only is all this profoundly shocking but it is profoundly shocking that the current U.S. leadership and large portions of the American elite don't realize that it is profoundly shocking.
In the name of apology, modesty, empathy, this is a policy that does terrible evil to the people supposedly being gratified, appeased, and helped. Yes, Turkey is a model, but it’s a model of a badly mistaken U.S. policy that assists a camouflaged advance of anti-American and radical Islamist power under the guise of moderation.
Note: Thanks to Okan Altiparmak, a Turkish filmmaker whose work can be found on his production company's website
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Sad Fate of Arab Moderates and The Arab World’s Tragic Success in Not Needing Them Any More
[Please subscribe]
By Barry Rubin
You have to feel sorry for those courageous enough to be Arab moderates. Most of your countrymen hate you, the government wants to crush you, the Islamists want to kill you, and the West doesn’t want to help you. I told this story in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East. (more information; order)
Despite all the endless talk of finding moderates in the Arab world, the real ones—few and far between—generally get ignored while preening, posturing extremists are treated as romantic figures.
So given all this pressure, the limited space permitted for free thought, the moderates have to talk like radicals to survive. In political terms, faced with the battle between the two giant movements of Islamism and Arab nationalism, they have to choose sides. Most liberals back their governments even though these are repressive dictatorships as a lesser of two evils to living under an Iran-, Gaza-, or Taliban-type state.
Except for some in Egypt, almost all the liberals pick the nationalists over the Islamists. I always think of the case of the Syrian dissident who'd spent some nasty time in prison and in an interview referred to the Syrian government as “fascist” but then, a few minutes later, explained that he supported that same government.
Hala Mustafa is a brave person. But when you see the stance she has to take—and I can give other examples of precisely the same exchanges by liberal intellectuals in other countries—the hopelessness of real reform or rethinking hits home very hard.
Mustafa, it may be recalled, is the editor of Egypt’s state-controlled democracy journal who got in trouble because she actually spoke a few minutes with Israel’s ambassador in her office.
The television interviewer asks her if that brief chat constituted “normalization” of relations with Israel. This is a real no-no, despite the fact that Egypt and Israel have been at peace for 30 years (happy anniversary!). The Palestinian Authority, by the way, followed the same view even during the height of the 1990s’ peace process. There was and is something pathetic and funny at watching well-intentioned Jewish peace activists running after Palestinians for dialogues in which the latter have no interest or are too fearful to do.
But the only line Mustafa can take—whether she believes it or not is another matter—is that the main reason Egypt must reform itself is to defeat Israel more effectively. She begins by saying:
“As long as we are part of the international community, and as long as we strive to belong to the developed countries, we need to speak their language.…Perhaps the reason that Israel was able to gain ground overseas, and that there is more recognition of Israel, its path, and its culture than of Arab culture, is that Israel speaks of the language of the international community….
“Interviewer: They are better integrated in the international system?”
“Dr. Hala Mustafa: Absolutely. They speak the same language, and know how to talk to them and convince them.”
“Interviewer: They are more skillful in obtaining their material, political, or moral support.”
“Dr. Hala Mustafa: Definitely. Their greatest success is in portraying the other side – the Arabs – as extremists, who carry weapons, shout, and make hysterical decisions. This image has become a stereotype, just like after 9/11, when the Muslims’ image became stereotypical and negative.”
Now I am definitely not attacking Mustafa here but merely pointing out the almost incredibly small maneuvering room such people have.
The usual response by mainstream Arab thinkers has been: You want us to talk or act like people in the West? That is a betrayal! We will not surrender an inch…. Etc., Etc. Read a speech, for example, by Syrian President Bashar al-Asad or by a lot of Arab nationalist intellectuals, as well as of course by Islamists, to hear this kind of thing.
And yet both they and Mustafa are missing a rather obvious and important point.
The Arabs have learned to speak the language of the modern international community and they are doing better at it than Israel.
Old style [which most Islamists still use, though even them not all the time]: The Jews are inferior. We will kill them all. We will never accept peace. We will wipe out Israel.
New style: The Israelis say that we are inferior. They want to kill us all. They don’t want peace. They violate our human rights. We are the victims. They want to wipe us out.
And by this brilliant inversion everything has changed. Leftist movements, humanitarian-oriented groups, huge sections of academia, large parts of the media, and various European governments bash Israel and extol the poor victims of the war criminal, racist, war-mongering, intransigent Israelis.
Of course, in fact, the positions of the Arab states and the Palestinian movement haven’t changed even in the tiniest iota. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the “one-state” solution argument was something that isolated the Arabs and increased Western support for Israel. Then it was presented as: Throw Israel into the sea. Jewish-Zionist nationalism cannot be allowed to live. Palestine is Arab, Arab, Arab alone!
Today, exactly the same “one-state” concept is spun with the colored lights and tinkling bells of multiculturalism and political correctness into seeming like a utopia where nationalism is passé and everyone will just be nice to each other and get along just fine.
In short, Arab governments and societies don’t need Mustafa and the other liberals to bring a compromise triumph through real moderation. The extremists “know how to talk to them [the West and the world] and convince them.” And, to use the interviewer's words: “They [the radicals, not the moderates] are more skillful in obtaining [the West’s] material, political, or moral support.”
Israel just gets slandered but is a free and democratic country whose people are able to move forward in developing its culture, raising living standards, and enjoying freedom. The Arabs are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their own disastrous “success” in gaining international sympathy by changing nothing.
What a remarkable but horrible irony. The “progressive” and “humanitarian” forces of the West have helped make real democratic and social reform unnecessary for the Arabic-speaking world and delivered it into decades more of violence, dictatorship, repression, stagnation, and failure.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
You have to feel sorry for those courageous enough to be Arab moderates. Most of your countrymen hate you, the government wants to crush you, the Islamists want to kill you, and the West doesn’t want to help you. I told this story in my book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East. (more information; order)
Despite all the endless talk of finding moderates in the Arab world, the real ones—few and far between—generally get ignored while preening, posturing extremists are treated as romantic figures.
So given all this pressure, the limited space permitted for free thought, the moderates have to talk like radicals to survive. In political terms, faced with the battle between the two giant movements of Islamism and Arab nationalism, they have to choose sides. Most liberals back their governments even though these are repressive dictatorships as a lesser of two evils to living under an Iran-, Gaza-, or Taliban-type state.
Except for some in Egypt, almost all the liberals pick the nationalists over the Islamists. I always think of the case of the Syrian dissident who'd spent some nasty time in prison and in an interview referred to the Syrian government as “fascist” but then, a few minutes later, explained that he supported that same government.
Hala Mustafa is a brave person. But when you see the stance she has to take—and I can give other examples of precisely the same exchanges by liberal intellectuals in other countries—the hopelessness of real reform or rethinking hits home very hard.
Mustafa, it may be recalled, is the editor of Egypt’s state-controlled democracy journal who got in trouble because she actually spoke a few minutes with Israel’s ambassador in her office.
The television interviewer asks her if that brief chat constituted “normalization” of relations with Israel. This is a real no-no, despite the fact that Egypt and Israel have been at peace for 30 years (happy anniversary!). The Palestinian Authority, by the way, followed the same view even during the height of the 1990s’ peace process. There was and is something pathetic and funny at watching well-intentioned Jewish peace activists running after Palestinians for dialogues in which the latter have no interest or are too fearful to do.
But the only line Mustafa can take—whether she believes it or not is another matter—is that the main reason Egypt must reform itself is to defeat Israel more effectively. She begins by saying:
“As long as we are part of the international community, and as long as we strive to belong to the developed countries, we need to speak their language.…Perhaps the reason that Israel was able to gain ground overseas, and that there is more recognition of Israel, its path, and its culture than of Arab culture, is that Israel speaks of the language of the international community….
“Interviewer: They are better integrated in the international system?”
“Dr. Hala Mustafa: Absolutely. They speak the same language, and know how to talk to them and convince them.”
“Interviewer: They are more skillful in obtaining their material, political, or moral support.”
“Dr. Hala Mustafa: Definitely. Their greatest success is in portraying the other side – the Arabs – as extremists, who carry weapons, shout, and make hysterical decisions. This image has become a stereotype, just like after 9/11, when the Muslims’ image became stereotypical and negative.”
Now I am definitely not attacking Mustafa here but merely pointing out the almost incredibly small maneuvering room such people have.
The usual response by mainstream Arab thinkers has been: You want us to talk or act like people in the West? That is a betrayal! We will not surrender an inch…. Etc., Etc. Read a speech, for example, by Syrian President Bashar al-Asad or by a lot of Arab nationalist intellectuals, as well as of course by Islamists, to hear this kind of thing.
And yet both they and Mustafa are missing a rather obvious and important point.
The Arabs have learned to speak the language of the modern international community and they are doing better at it than Israel.
Old style [which most Islamists still use, though even them not all the time]: The Jews are inferior. We will kill them all. We will never accept peace. We will wipe out Israel.
New style: The Israelis say that we are inferior. They want to kill us all. They don’t want peace. They violate our human rights. We are the victims. They want to wipe us out.
And by this brilliant inversion everything has changed. Leftist movements, humanitarian-oriented groups, huge sections of academia, large parts of the media, and various European governments bash Israel and extol the poor victims of the war criminal, racist, war-mongering, intransigent Israelis.
Of course, in fact, the positions of the Arab states and the Palestinian movement haven’t changed even in the tiniest iota. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the “one-state” solution argument was something that isolated the Arabs and increased Western support for Israel. Then it was presented as: Throw Israel into the sea. Jewish-Zionist nationalism cannot be allowed to live. Palestine is Arab, Arab, Arab alone!
Today, exactly the same “one-state” concept is spun with the colored lights and tinkling bells of multiculturalism and political correctness into seeming like a utopia where nationalism is passé and everyone will just be nice to each other and get along just fine.
In short, Arab governments and societies don’t need Mustafa and the other liberals to bring a compromise triumph through real moderation. The extremists “know how to talk to them [the West and the world] and convince them.” And, to use the interviewer's words: “They [the radicals, not the moderates] are more skillful in obtaining [the West’s] material, political, or moral support.”
Israel just gets slandered but is a free and democratic country whose people are able to move forward in developing its culture, raising living standards, and enjoying freedom. The Arabs are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their own disastrous “success” in gaining international sympathy by changing nothing.
What a remarkable but horrible irony. The “progressive” and “humanitarian” forces of the West have helped make real democratic and social reform unnecessary for the Arabic-speaking world and delivered it into decades more of violence, dictatorship, repression, stagnation, and failure.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
