By Barry Rubin
A second flotilla of ships is going to the Gaza Strip. Or should I say, trying to go there since it will be stopped if necessary by a legal Israeli blockade. In the first flotilla, the Islamist holy warriors organized by the Turkish government-backed IHH group all gathered on one ship. The other boats, the ships of (political) tools cooperated, no one was injured, and they were towed into port. The ship of jihadists attacked Israeli soldiers, kidnapped and beat up a couple of them, and had the "victory" of getting nine martyrs out of it. Let us never forget that when the Israeli Defense Forces made public a video showing these facts the New York Times blog in a particularly shameful moment dismissed it alleging that the soldiers might have been shooting down unarmed civilians just standing around the deck before the film began. (Thus posing the twenty-first century journalistic question: Who are you going to believe, the facts and your eyes or your predetermined ideological bias?)
Now, of course, any actual humanitarian aid could be taken into the Gaza Strip through Egypt, showing that this is a purely political operation designed to end all sanctions on the Gaza Strip so that weapons, money, terrorists, and all necessary equipment can flow in freely. In addition, the goal is to undermine international support for Israel. This time there's also a different strategy for the flotilla itself. The would-be terrorists have dispersed themselves among the naive "peace activists"...
read more
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
NY Times "Scoop": Israel Claims Media Coverage is Unfair
By Barry Rubin
Sometimes when one of the better reporters around tries to be fair the result shows up the low quality of Middle East coverage generally. In an article on the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy, and the flotilla of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists, the New York Times informs us:
"Israel’s relationship with the foreign news media has grown strained in recent years; the country increasingly believes that foreign portrayals of its conflict with the Palestinians are harsh and one-sided."
Since Israelis have been quite aware of media bias since the mid-1980s and provided hundreds (thousands) of examples this should not exactly be a discovery. But American newspaper readers or television watchers are rarely informed of this fact by the very institutions that stand accused of bias, ignorance, and just plain bad reporting.
A detailed analysis of how the flotilla, the Gaza Strip, and Israel's policy is being covered.
Read more
Sometimes when one of the better reporters around tries to be fair the result shows up the low quality of Middle East coverage generally. In an article on the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy, and the flotilla of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists, the New York Times informs us:
"Israel’s relationship with the foreign news media has grown strained in recent years; the country increasingly believes that foreign portrayals of its conflict with the Palestinians are harsh and one-sided."
Since Israelis have been quite aware of media bias since the mid-1980s and provided hundreds (thousands) of examples this should not exactly be a discovery. But American newspaper readers or television watchers are rarely informed of this fact by the very institutions that stand accused of bias, ignorance, and just plain bad reporting.
A detailed analysis of how the flotilla, the Gaza Strip, and Israel's policy is being covered.
Read more
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Hamas is Moving Toward War With Israel
By Barry Rubin
Two attacks by Hamas today signal an escalation in which Hamas, emboldened by the changed strategic situation and especially by Egypt's revolution, want to provoke a war with Israel. A huge crisis could result and Western governments are totally unprepared to deal with it. See here.
Two attacks by Hamas today signal an escalation in which Hamas, emboldened by the changed strategic situation and especially by Egypt's revolution, want to provoke a war with Israel. A huge crisis could result and Western governments are totally unprepared to deal with it. See here.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A Weapons-Laden Ship for Gaza Marks A Big Transformation of the Middle East
Please be subscriber 19,198 (daily reader 36,138). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The story of the Liberian-flag ship Victoria is dramatic enough but few will understand, at least immediately, that it opens a new era in the region’s history. It is a period when, for the first time in more than thirty years Egypt will not be a reliable force for regional peace and stability.
The Victoria was loaded with a large shipment of weapons in Latakia, Syria. Note that Syria is a dictatorship where nothing happens without government approval. Thus, the Syrian regime decided to provide arms to the terrorist group Hamas. It did so fairly openly because the Asad dictatorship has no fear of individual punishment, censor, or even bad publicity.
The Syrian government also supplies arms to Iraqi insurgents who murder Americans as well as Iraqi civilians. Nevertheless, the current U.S. government has engaged Syria diplomatically and has made a series of concessions to it. The Syrians have made clear that they view these thing as concessions showing that they are strong, America is weak, and that Syria can get away with whatever it wants to do.
Question: Will the U.S. government and European governments change their policies when presented evidence of open Syrian sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing the region? Will the U.S. engagement end? Will the European Union censure Syria the way it has so frequently treated Israel? Will the media spend anywhere near as much time criticizing Syria, exposing its human rights’ violations, and international misbehavior as it does in finding reasons to vilify Israel?
Answer: You know the answers are all “No.”
By the way, the photos (see links at the end of this article) show some official Iranian documents were captured. It is likely that Iran paid for the weapons and supplied some or even most of them directly. You see, Iran is at war with America. It backs terrorism generally, kills Americans in Iraq, trains the Taliban, shelters al-Qaida (according to U.S. intelligence documents), and tries to foment war on Israel.
Question: Will U.S. policy under the current administration recognize these (non-nuclear) threats and take up the competition seriously?
Answer: You know already that it's "No."
The Victoria then proceeded to Turkey as a way to launder the true purpose of its voyage. Next, it headed for Alexandria, Egypt, where the arms were to be unloaded and shipped to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
This operation would not have happened three months ago, before the Egyptian revolution because Syria and Hamas would have faced two problems:
First, under the Mubarak government the ship would have been checked and the cargo confiscated. Israel would have informed Egypt about the cargo and purpose. But even if that had not happened, for its own interests the then-government of Egypt would not have wanted a large-scale arms shipment to Hamas.
Second, under the Mubarak government even if the weapons had been unloaded there is a good chance they would have been seized at the Egypt-Gaza border. Even though many weapons are smuggled across, the chance of being caught has kept the level of smuggling below a certain point. Now, emboldened, Iran, Syria, Hizballah (there are now Hizballah advisors in Gaza), and Hamas itself believe that either the Egyptian forces don’t care, are ideologically supportive, or can be even more easily bribed.
However, the gates are not completely open. A much more blatant arms smuggling effort to Hamas through Sudan has been reportedly intercepted and stopped by the Egyptian military.
Events in Egypt teach us once again that while countries pursue their national interests it is up to governments to define those interests. The previous sentence is the key to international affairs. It provides all the international relations and political science theory you will ever need. A new regime--as we saw with the overthrow of the shah and his replacement by Islamists in Iran--has a new view of national interests.
The old Egyptian government knew Hamas wanted to destabilize it and help replace it with an Islamist regime. That Egyptian government also understood that an escalation of Hamas-Israel war could draw in Egypt as well and destabilize the region. The old Egyptian government was angry at Hizballah, which tried to carry out terrorist operations on its own soil. That regime viewed its interests as diametrically opposed to those of the Iran-Syria axis that wishes to seize hegemony in the Middle East and drive out Western interests.
Egypt is in the process of redefining its national interests.
Ladies and gentlemen, everything you have been told by most Western governments and virtually all the world’s media was wrong. Egypt has gone from being a force for stability in the region and the strengthening of Western interests to—at best—a neutralist state that is indifferent on the key issues. The next step could well be into the negative category.
With the U.S. government unreliable and the Europeans even more so, Israel is going to look after its own defense. Israel’s government is going to be very polite about all of this. It will make protests that it knows will go unheeded. It will prepare detailed dossiers of its assertions that it knows will go unpublished. It will offer potential compromises that it knows will go unmet by counterparts.
And at the same time it will go about the business of protecting itself and its people.
As everyone is watching the results of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, there is a man-made earthquake and tsunami in the Middle East.
Note: It is interesting to compare the Victoria to the ship Karina-B, carrying weapons from Iran to Fatah with the deal being arranged by Hizballah. This showed that Yasir Arafat wanted to escalate the fighting into a major Israel-Palestinian war. Under a previous president, U.S. policymakers reacted strongly, though only very temporarily, against the Palestinian Authority.
For details on the Victoria ship affair see video on boarding of ship, Past Attempts of Weapons Smuggling by Sea; and Israel's interception of arms ships - Background. And here's a slide show.
Update: A list of the weapons aboard and photos are here.
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 books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The story of the Liberian-flag ship Victoria is dramatic enough but few will understand, at least immediately, that it opens a new era in the region’s history. It is a period when, for the first time in more than thirty years Egypt will not be a reliable force for regional peace and stability.
The Victoria was loaded with a large shipment of weapons in Latakia, Syria. Note that Syria is a dictatorship where nothing happens without government approval. Thus, the Syrian regime decided to provide arms to the terrorist group Hamas. It did so fairly openly because the Asad dictatorship has no fear of individual punishment, censor, or even bad publicity.
The Syrian government also supplies arms to Iraqi insurgents who murder Americans as well as Iraqi civilians. Nevertheless, the current U.S. government has engaged Syria diplomatically and has made a series of concessions to it. The Syrians have made clear that they view these thing as concessions showing that they are strong, America is weak, and that Syria can get away with whatever it wants to do.
Question: Will the U.S. government and European governments change their policies when presented evidence of open Syrian sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing the region? Will the U.S. engagement end? Will the European Union censure Syria the way it has so frequently treated Israel? Will the media spend anywhere near as much time criticizing Syria, exposing its human rights’ violations, and international misbehavior as it does in finding reasons to vilify Israel?
Answer: You know the answers are all “No.”
By the way, the photos (see links at the end of this article) show some official Iranian documents were captured. It is likely that Iran paid for the weapons and supplied some or even most of them directly. You see, Iran is at war with America. It backs terrorism generally, kills Americans in Iraq, trains the Taliban, shelters al-Qaida (according to U.S. intelligence documents), and tries to foment war on Israel.
Question: Will U.S. policy under the current administration recognize these (non-nuclear) threats and take up the competition seriously?
Answer: You know already that it's "No."
The Victoria then proceeded to Turkey as a way to launder the true purpose of its voyage. Next, it headed for Alexandria, Egypt, where the arms were to be unloaded and shipped to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
This operation would not have happened three months ago, before the Egyptian revolution because Syria and Hamas would have faced two problems:
First, under the Mubarak government the ship would have been checked and the cargo confiscated. Israel would have informed Egypt about the cargo and purpose. But even if that had not happened, for its own interests the then-government of Egypt would not have wanted a large-scale arms shipment to Hamas.
Second, under the Mubarak government even if the weapons had been unloaded there is a good chance they would have been seized at the Egypt-Gaza border. Even though many weapons are smuggled across, the chance of being caught has kept the level of smuggling below a certain point. Now, emboldened, Iran, Syria, Hizballah (there are now Hizballah advisors in Gaza), and Hamas itself believe that either the Egyptian forces don’t care, are ideologically supportive, or can be even more easily bribed.
However, the gates are not completely open. A much more blatant arms smuggling effort to Hamas through Sudan has been reportedly intercepted and stopped by the Egyptian military.
Events in Egypt teach us once again that while countries pursue their national interests it is up to governments to define those interests. The previous sentence is the key to international affairs. It provides all the international relations and political science theory you will ever need. A new regime--as we saw with the overthrow of the shah and his replacement by Islamists in Iran--has a new view of national interests.
The old Egyptian government knew Hamas wanted to destabilize it and help replace it with an Islamist regime. That Egyptian government also understood that an escalation of Hamas-Israel war could draw in Egypt as well and destabilize the region. The old Egyptian government was angry at Hizballah, which tried to carry out terrorist operations on its own soil. That regime viewed its interests as diametrically opposed to those of the Iran-Syria axis that wishes to seize hegemony in the Middle East and drive out Western interests.
Egypt is in the process of redefining its national interests.
Ladies and gentlemen, everything you have been told by most Western governments and virtually all the world’s media was wrong. Egypt has gone from being a force for stability in the region and the strengthening of Western interests to—at best—a neutralist state that is indifferent on the key issues. The next step could well be into the negative category.
With the U.S. government unreliable and the Europeans even more so, Israel is going to look after its own defense. Israel’s government is going to be very polite about all of this. It will make protests that it knows will go unheeded. It will prepare detailed dossiers of its assertions that it knows will go unpublished. It will offer potential compromises that it knows will go unmet by counterparts.
And at the same time it will go about the business of protecting itself and its people.
As everyone is watching the results of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, there is a man-made earthquake and tsunami in the Middle East.
Note: It is interesting to compare the Victoria to the ship Karina-B, carrying weapons from Iran to Fatah with the deal being arranged by Hizballah. This showed that Yasir Arafat wanted to escalate the fighting into a major Israel-Palestinian war. Under a previous president, U.S. policymakers reacted strongly, though only very temporarily, against the Palestinian Authority.
For details on the Victoria ship affair see video on boarding of ship, Past Attempts of Weapons Smuggling by Sea; and Israel's interception of arms ships - Background. And here's a slide show.
Update: A list of the weapons aboard and photos are here.
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 books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Wikileaks on Gaza Shows Israeli Policy and Why It Made Sense
Please be subscriber 18,328 (and daily reader 20,328). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A new Wikileaks document is being spun by some media to imply something critical about Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip. In fact, the secret cable shows the exact opposite. It also shows that what I've been writing on the subject has been 100 percent accurate.
The U.S. State Department cable dated November 3, 2008, says that the goal of Israel's sanctions on the Gaza Strip was to keep Gaza's economy functioning at the lowest possible level without causing a humanitarian crisis.
Precisely:
1. Israel wanted to keep the economy weak in order to reduce public support for the Hamas regime to the minimum possible level.
2. Israel wanted to keep the economy weak in order to keep Hamas as weak as possible so that it could not easily stage war on Israel or expand its influence into the West Bank or Egypt.
3. Israel did not want the people of Gaza to face hunger or serious deprivation based on existing living standards.
That all makes sense. It is in line with centuries of precedent and the policies of all democratic nations facing adversaries in a wartime situation.
Moreover since Hamas is a repressive, terrorist, genocidal-intended group that is a client of Iran and seeks to subvert almost all Arab governments, that policy does a service for the people of Gaza, Arab governments (notably the Palestinian Authority and Egypt), and Western interests.
BUT now that the sanctions have been minimized due to Western pressure and the urgings of well-intentioned but badly informed people:
--Hamas will be in power forever in Gaza.
--It will repress women, chase out Christians, and teach young people to grow up to be terrorists and suicide bombers.
--It will siphon off money for revolutionary subversive activities.
--It will block any possible negotiations for Israel-Palestinian peace.
--It is better able to subvert and perhaps some day take over the West Bank.
--It is better able to help revolutionary Islamists and terrorists in Egypt.
--The Hamas regime gives Iran a client state on the Mediterranean.
This is a step forward? A humanitarian victory? Don't think so.
So far, every single Wikileaks document--released by people who hate Israel (at least one of the Wikileaks staffer being a known extremist antisemitic nut)--has made Israel look good and has proven that its analysis of regional politics has been correct.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A new Wikileaks document is being spun by some media to imply something critical about Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip. In fact, the secret cable shows the exact opposite. It also shows that what I've been writing on the subject has been 100 percent accurate.
The U.S. State Department cable dated November 3, 2008, says that the goal of Israel's sanctions on the Gaza Strip was to keep Gaza's economy functioning at the lowest possible level without causing a humanitarian crisis.
Precisely:
1. Israel wanted to keep the economy weak in order to reduce public support for the Hamas regime to the minimum possible level.
2. Israel wanted to keep the economy weak in order to keep Hamas as weak as possible so that it could not easily stage war on Israel or expand its influence into the West Bank or Egypt.
3. Israel did not want the people of Gaza to face hunger or serious deprivation based on existing living standards.
That all makes sense. It is in line with centuries of precedent and the policies of all democratic nations facing adversaries in a wartime situation.
Moreover since Hamas is a repressive, terrorist, genocidal-intended group that is a client of Iran and seeks to subvert almost all Arab governments, that policy does a service for the people of Gaza, Arab governments (notably the Palestinian Authority and Egypt), and Western interests.
BUT now that the sanctions have been minimized due to Western pressure and the urgings of well-intentioned but badly informed people:
--Hamas will be in power forever in Gaza.
--It will repress women, chase out Christians, and teach young people to grow up to be terrorists and suicide bombers.
--It will siphon off money for revolutionary subversive activities.
--It will block any possible negotiations for Israel-Palestinian peace.
--It is better able to subvert and perhaps some day take over the West Bank.
--It is better able to help revolutionary Islamists and terrorists in Egypt.
--The Hamas regime gives Iran a client state on the Mediterranean.
This is a step forward? A humanitarian victory? Don't think so.
So far, every single Wikileaks document--released by people who hate Israel (at least one of the Wikileaks staffer being a known extremist antisemitic nut)--has made Israel look good and has proven that its analysis of regional politics has been correct.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Poisoned Fruits of Appeasement Come Home to Roost
Please be subscriber 18,078 (and daily reader 20,078.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The U.S. weakness in countering Iran and other radical forces in the Middle East is beginning to bear poisoned fruits. Jordan is already moving toward getting on Iran’s good side; Lebanon has been captured by the Iran-Syria camp; Turkey has moved into its orbit, becoming an ally of Iran and Syria, while the Obama Administration merely makes counterproductive speeches emphasizing how important the relationship is with that country despite differences (that is, the Turkish regime sabotaging U.S. interests repeatedly).
Now Qatar--which hedges its bets between cooperating with the United States on basing rights, sponsors the radical anti-American al-Jazira network, and works with Iran on regional issues—has also moved closer to Tehran. Qatar participated in joint war games with Iran and has now invited Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops for a visit including five warships to inspect Qatar’s defenses. Deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' navy, Alireza Tangsiri, said, "Such programs will definitely pave the way for mutual cooperation."
You bet.
Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip all the influx of Western aid and the reduction of sanctions hasn’t helped matters one bit when it comes to the terrorism of its Hamas rulers. On the contrary, 14 rockets were fired at Israel on December 19 and 20 (one narrowly missing a kindergarten class), by far the highest number since the war caused by massive Hamas attacks a year ago.
But guess what? Aid groups are now campaigning for reducing sanctions even more! And after the restrictions have been narrowed to cover only military-related material, Reuters describes this as a "blockade."
Could it be that Western support for Hamas, or at least for stabilizing its rule in the Gaza Strip, is making Hamas bolder?
Might it be that Western criticism of Israel for its military campaign two years ago--without seriously condemning Hamas's aggression and use of civilians as human shields--has convinced Hamas that it can attack Israel regularly but Israel will hesitate to retaliate lest it incur international condemnation again?
Is it possible that Hamas is confident that if Israel does attack it can use this as leverage to gain even more Western concessions and apparent sympathy by cynically sacrificing its own people? [Sarcasm alert] No doubt, when there are no sanctions at all, Hamas will become moderate.
In fact, Israel has already learned the lesson that the more land it withdrew from and the more concessions offered, the more militant, confident, and intransigent the other side became. That's why nowadays those demanding even more concessions--if there is some real cost or risk involved--are going to be ignored if at all possible.
Can there be any correlation between Western eagerness to engage Syria while ignoring its continued aggression in Iraq and Lebanon with that dictatorship's growing boldness and arrogance? (Indeed, at this very moment, Lebanese moderates are complaining that France is making a deal with Hizballah to sell out the investigation of Syrian (and possibly Hizballah) involvement in assassinations and terrorism against Lebanese moderates.)
And might it further be credible that by making the Palestinian Authority feel that it can get international recognition by refusing to negotiate with Israel or compromise is sabotaging the peace process that Western governments so passionately advocate?
Here's UPI's strange fable about the situation:
"Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas]...has sought to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel rather than wage war against it to liberate Palestinian land from 43 years of occupation. As such, he has been central to U.S. efforts to move the foundering peace process forward....His popularity, such as it was, has ebbed, particularly among Arafat's Old Guard, as the prospect of a Palestinian state faded in the face of Israel's intransigence."
Yes, we live in a bizarre world in which Israel has offered to negotiate for two solid years and froze construction for ten months at U.S. request while the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate and yet it is Israel that is allegedly showing "intransigence." And in which explanations of the conflict always mention Palestinian demands but never the fact that Israel wants to be secure from 62 years of war waged against it to wipe it off the map.
All of these points are obvious; none of these points seem to shape Western policy or mass media coverage. Probably a year or two from now when the relationship of appeasing or ignoring radical forces is apparent these links will be discovered with astonishment by those who should be coping with them now.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The U.S. weakness in countering Iran and other radical forces in the Middle East is beginning to bear poisoned fruits. Jordan is already moving toward getting on Iran’s good side; Lebanon has been captured by the Iran-Syria camp; Turkey has moved into its orbit, becoming an ally of Iran and Syria, while the Obama Administration merely makes counterproductive speeches emphasizing how important the relationship is with that country despite differences (that is, the Turkish regime sabotaging U.S. interests repeatedly).
Now Qatar--which hedges its bets between cooperating with the United States on basing rights, sponsors the radical anti-American al-Jazira network, and works with Iran on regional issues—has also moved closer to Tehran. Qatar participated in joint war games with Iran and has now invited Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops for a visit including five warships to inspect Qatar’s defenses. Deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' navy, Alireza Tangsiri, said, "Such programs will definitely pave the way for mutual cooperation."
You bet.
Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip all the influx of Western aid and the reduction of sanctions hasn’t helped matters one bit when it comes to the terrorism of its Hamas rulers. On the contrary, 14 rockets were fired at Israel on December 19 and 20 (one narrowly missing a kindergarten class), by far the highest number since the war caused by massive Hamas attacks a year ago.
But guess what? Aid groups are now campaigning for reducing sanctions even more! And after the restrictions have been narrowed to cover only military-related material, Reuters describes this as a "blockade."
Could it be that Western support for Hamas, or at least for stabilizing its rule in the Gaza Strip, is making Hamas bolder?
Might it be that Western criticism of Israel for its military campaign two years ago--without seriously condemning Hamas's aggression and use of civilians as human shields--has convinced Hamas that it can attack Israel regularly but Israel will hesitate to retaliate lest it incur international condemnation again?
Is it possible that Hamas is confident that if Israel does attack it can use this as leverage to gain even more Western concessions and apparent sympathy by cynically sacrificing its own people? [Sarcasm alert] No doubt, when there are no sanctions at all, Hamas will become moderate.
In fact, Israel has already learned the lesson that the more land it withdrew from and the more concessions offered, the more militant, confident, and intransigent the other side became. That's why nowadays those demanding even more concessions--if there is some real cost or risk involved--are going to be ignored if at all possible.
Can there be any correlation between Western eagerness to engage Syria while ignoring its continued aggression in Iraq and Lebanon with that dictatorship's growing boldness and arrogance? (Indeed, at this very moment, Lebanese moderates are complaining that France is making a deal with Hizballah to sell out the investigation of Syrian (and possibly Hizballah) involvement in assassinations and terrorism against Lebanese moderates.)
And might it further be credible that by making the Palestinian Authority feel that it can get international recognition by refusing to negotiate with Israel or compromise is sabotaging the peace process that Western governments so passionately advocate?
Here's UPI's strange fable about the situation:
"Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas]...has sought to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel rather than wage war against it to liberate Palestinian land from 43 years of occupation. As such, he has been central to U.S. efforts to move the foundering peace process forward....His popularity, such as it was, has ebbed, particularly among Arafat's Old Guard, as the prospect of a Palestinian state faded in the face of Israel's intransigence."
Yes, we live in a bizarre world in which Israel has offered to negotiate for two solid years and froze construction for ten months at U.S. request while the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate and yet it is Israel that is allegedly showing "intransigence." And in which explanations of the conflict always mention Palestinian demands but never the fact that Israel wants to be secure from 62 years of war waged against it to wipe it off the map.
All of these points are obvious; none of these points seem to shape Western policy or mass media coverage. Probably a year or two from now when the relationship of appeasing or ignoring radical forces is apparent these links will be discovered with astonishment by those who should be coping with them now.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Good Reports On Situation Along Israel's Northern and Southern Borders
Please be subscriber 18,064 (and daily reader 20,064.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Here’s a good report on Israel’s amazing intelligence activity along its northern border, with new types of information-gathering and targeting equipment concealed in rocks:
And here’s a good report on the heating up of terrorism activity along Israel’s Gaza border:
Note that something very important is happening here--unnoticed [surprise!] by the international mass media. Hamas is showing that it can rake in foreign aid money and rebuild, while simultaneously continuing to attack Israel. Of course, if Israel were to retaliate, Hamas would then run crying to the world about how it is the victim of aggression and how all of its beautiful humanitarian projects are being ruined.
Presumably, though, this also means that Hamas will keep the level of attacks low and carried out mostly by Hamas's friendly allies--notably Islamic Jihad--so Hamas can say that it isn't doing anything and "can't stop" others from attacking Israel.
This is, of course, a con-game but it is one that usually works.
Israel will respond with sporadic attacks on specific targets, avoiding a war unless the situation deteriorates sharply and attacks from Gaza vastly increase.
Regarding the north, Hizballah is busy consolidating control of Lebanon and is not seeking a war either. But it has also been playing the same game as Hamas. It brings in advanced weapons, bullies everyone else in Lebanon, supports Iran-Syria hegemony over the country, and rebuilds bases in the south.
The world, through the UN resolution ending the 2006 war, promised to stop these things and sent a large UNIFIL force to do so. But the UN, UNIFIL, EU, and US do nothing.
And then all these same people ask: I wonder why the Middle East is unstable? What could possibly be the cause of these problems?
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Here’s a good report on Israel’s amazing intelligence activity along its northern border, with new types of information-gathering and targeting equipment concealed in rocks:
And here’s a good report on the heating up of terrorism activity along Israel’s Gaza border:
Note that something very important is happening here--unnoticed [surprise!] by the international mass media. Hamas is showing that it can rake in foreign aid money and rebuild, while simultaneously continuing to attack Israel. Of course, if Israel were to retaliate, Hamas would then run crying to the world about how it is the victim of aggression and how all of its beautiful humanitarian projects are being ruined.
Presumably, though, this also means that Hamas will keep the level of attacks low and carried out mostly by Hamas's friendly allies--notably Islamic Jihad--so Hamas can say that it isn't doing anything and "can't stop" others from attacking Israel.
This is, of course, a con-game but it is one that usually works.
Israel will respond with sporadic attacks on specific targets, avoiding a war unless the situation deteriorates sharply and attacks from Gaza vastly increase.
Regarding the north, Hizballah is busy consolidating control of Lebanon and is not seeking a war either. But it has also been playing the same game as Hamas. It brings in advanced weapons, bullies everyone else in Lebanon, supports Iran-Syria hegemony over the country, and rebuilds bases in the south.
The world, through the UN resolution ending the 2006 war, promised to stop these things and sent a large UNIFIL force to do so. But the UN, UNIFIL, EU, and US do nothing.
And then all these same people ask: I wonder why the Middle East is unstable? What could possibly be the cause of these problems?
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thanks to International Aid, Gaza Is Going To Be A Well-Off Islamist Republic
Please be subscriber 18,011 (and daily reader 20,011.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The Gaza Strip is doing really well economically and the Hamas regime seems set to go on forever. It's raking in the aid money but every dollar and every project is shaped to ensure that Hamas remains in power, can return to violence in future and...wreck everything again.
Already, several malls have been built along with other projects, many oriented toward a luxury market. Hamas has taken reporters on tours designed to maximize the idea that the Gaza Strip is suffering. But available photographs show that a lot of construction is in fact happening and that shops are full of merchandise..
"There are a slew of products here, and beautiful restaurants. Is this the Gaza we have been hearing about?" asked a Sudanese official arriving there, as quoted by the Palestinian news agency Maan. "Where is the siege? I don't see it in Gaza. I wish Sudan's residents could live under the conditions of the Gazan siege."
If Hamas were a normal government getting a rebuilding effort going would be great. By normal government I mean even a normal dictatorship. Such a regime would say:
We’re raising living standards, we’re increasing our popularity. Why should we be so foolish as to go to war against a stronger neighbor and see all of this destroyed again?
But, of course, Hamas is not a normal ruling group. It believes that the Creator of the Universe is on its side and wants it to fight. Hamas revels in martyrdom. It thinks total victory and the killing of all Israeli Jews is achievable. And it knows that the rest of the world won’t let it be fully defeated and thrown out of power no matter how many rockets, martyrs, and terrorist groups it sends into Israel.
As a dictatorial regime intending to control everything and stay in power forever, Hamas is locking the Gaza population into its patronage system, a sort of Islamist welfare state, so that people wouldn’t dare break with their rulers.
The main projected project: is building 25,000 new housing units in the northern Gaza Strip, just west of Beit Lahiya. Here’s how a business magazine explains it:
“The neighborhood…will be named after the residence of the 72 virgins waiting in paradise. The al-Buraq neighborhood, named after the horse Prophet Muhammad rode from Mecca to the al-Aqsa Mosque, will be built on the lands of Gush Katif. The Andalus neighborhood is aimed at reminding the Muslims of their days of glory in Spain.”
Let’s stop a minute and consider those names and what a reporter wouldn’t even notice here:
--72 virgins: To remind everyone growing up there that they, too, can get six dozen virgins if they become a martyr by blowing up Israeli civilians.
--The horse: To remind everyone that their goal in life is to devote themselves to warfare so they, too, can travel to the al-Aqsa mosque and conquer Jerusalem.
--Andalus: To remind everyone of the one-time (and future?) extent of the Muslim empire which even conquered Spain, and where they also intend to return.
This is a fascinating example of how economic development mixes with political power and indoctrination. Up in Lebanon, Hizballah is doing similar things. But there’s more, much more.
Who will get the apartments if they are ever built? First in line are the families of martyrs, prisoners, and wounded fighters. This shows the advantages of fighting for Hamas. The way you get an apartment is not to get a good education and work hard to earn the necessary money but rather to die in battle. I predicted all of the following six months ago as the inevitable consequence of a U.S. policy that backs, in effect, Hamas staying in power.
Next on the priority list come young couples who don’t have an apartment or a lot to build on. That’s nice, but it relates to the theme—which Hamas has voiced often--of maximizing population growth so as to achieve victory through overwhelming numbers, which also provides more fighters
Only in third place come families that lost their homes during the fighting last year, which is the group you’d expect to have the highest priority. All the humanitarian groups that have decried Israel's defensive war against Hamas might take note that Hamas has put the victims last in line for relief. This is a good indication of its thinking and policies.
You can bet, by the way, that Hamas loyalists will get put into line in each of these categories ahead of Fatah supporters. That gives people an incentive to switch sides and to support the regime.
Moreover, only those working for the Hamas government can get a bank loan; families of casualties can get help from Hamas-controlled Islamic charities. The rest can get mortgages only with Islamic associations controlled by Hamas. Anybody involved in opposition activities would probably get turned down. And, of course, the people who do get help must be grateful to Hamas for the roof over their heads.
Finally, the way the project is being laid out looks to me as if it is being set up as a barrier to any future Israeli military operation into the Gaza Strip.
On one hand, it will create a dense network of narrow streets and buildings which can be more easily defended by guerrillas, likely to inflict more casualties on Israel’s soldiers.
On the other hand, it would be the architectural equivalent of a human shield, since Israeli forces would have to damage civilian apartments to engage Hamas men firing from them, thus creating a situation which could be falsely portrayed as a war crime.
At any rate, it should be rather impossible to speak about the Gaza Strip as deprived and suffering any more, though I suspect that won’t stop a lot of people from doing so. The article explains:
“There is apparently no shortage of money. Generous donations are flowing in from Iran, Islamic associations across the Arab worlds, and governmental elements in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Western elements.
“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been mercilessly pursuing Hamas in the West Bank, is aiding Gaza with millions of dollars, boasting that 57% of the Palestinian Authority budget is directed at the Strip. Abbas pays the salaries of 70,000 government workers from the post-Hamas era, maintains the health and education systems, and even funds some of Gaza's electricity production expenses.”
But Hamas no doubt will use part of the money for paying, training, and arming its soldiers and security men. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, however, Hamas is also putting in a tax system: value-added tax, income tax, tax on gas, and tax on all goods arriving from Israel. Bottom line: Hamas will take its cut of everything coming in and everything going on.
And how is the world responding to this? Well, Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair wants the sanctions reduced even further, presumably on the dangerously risky theory that if Hamas gets to be really wealthy and popular it will become moderate rather than better able to promote revolution and terrorism.
It is a good thing that Gazans will have nicer lives materially. But the same process will ensure that they will not have a better life in terms of freedom. With Hamas indoctrinating young people to become terrorists and even suicide bombers many of them will have shorter lives. And since Hamas is just preparing for another war with Israel—or provocations that will eventually lead to war—those apartments might not be there forever either.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The Gaza Strip is doing really well economically and the Hamas regime seems set to go on forever. It's raking in the aid money but every dollar and every project is shaped to ensure that Hamas remains in power, can return to violence in future and...wreck everything again.
Already, several malls have been built along with other projects, many oriented toward a luxury market. Hamas has taken reporters on tours designed to maximize the idea that the Gaza Strip is suffering. But available photographs show that a lot of construction is in fact happening and that shops are full of merchandise..
"There are a slew of products here, and beautiful restaurants. Is this the Gaza we have been hearing about?" asked a Sudanese official arriving there, as quoted by the Palestinian news agency Maan. "Where is the siege? I don't see it in Gaza. I wish Sudan's residents could live under the conditions of the Gazan siege."
If Hamas were a normal government getting a rebuilding effort going would be great. By normal government I mean even a normal dictatorship. Such a regime would say:
We’re raising living standards, we’re increasing our popularity. Why should we be so foolish as to go to war against a stronger neighbor and see all of this destroyed again?
But, of course, Hamas is not a normal ruling group. It believes that the Creator of the Universe is on its side and wants it to fight. Hamas revels in martyrdom. It thinks total victory and the killing of all Israeli Jews is achievable. And it knows that the rest of the world won’t let it be fully defeated and thrown out of power no matter how many rockets, martyrs, and terrorist groups it sends into Israel.
As a dictatorial regime intending to control everything and stay in power forever, Hamas is locking the Gaza population into its patronage system, a sort of Islamist welfare state, so that people wouldn’t dare break with their rulers.
The main projected project: is building 25,000 new housing units in the northern Gaza Strip, just west of Beit Lahiya. Here’s how a business magazine explains it:
“The neighborhood…will be named after the residence of the 72 virgins waiting in paradise. The al-Buraq neighborhood, named after the horse Prophet Muhammad rode from Mecca to the al-Aqsa Mosque, will be built on the lands of Gush Katif. The Andalus neighborhood is aimed at reminding the Muslims of their days of glory in Spain.”
Let’s stop a minute and consider those names and what a reporter wouldn’t even notice here:
--72 virgins: To remind everyone growing up there that they, too, can get six dozen virgins if they become a martyr by blowing up Israeli civilians.
--The horse: To remind everyone that their goal in life is to devote themselves to warfare so they, too, can travel to the al-Aqsa mosque and conquer Jerusalem.
--Andalus: To remind everyone of the one-time (and future?) extent of the Muslim empire which even conquered Spain, and where they also intend to return.
This is a fascinating example of how economic development mixes with political power and indoctrination. Up in Lebanon, Hizballah is doing similar things. But there’s more, much more.
Who will get the apartments if they are ever built? First in line are the families of martyrs, prisoners, and wounded fighters. This shows the advantages of fighting for Hamas. The way you get an apartment is not to get a good education and work hard to earn the necessary money but rather to die in battle. I predicted all of the following six months ago as the inevitable consequence of a U.S. policy that backs, in effect, Hamas staying in power.
Next on the priority list come young couples who don’t have an apartment or a lot to build on. That’s nice, but it relates to the theme—which Hamas has voiced often--of maximizing population growth so as to achieve victory through overwhelming numbers, which also provides more fighters
Only in third place come families that lost their homes during the fighting last year, which is the group you’d expect to have the highest priority. All the humanitarian groups that have decried Israel's defensive war against Hamas might take note that Hamas has put the victims last in line for relief. This is a good indication of its thinking and policies.
You can bet, by the way, that Hamas loyalists will get put into line in each of these categories ahead of Fatah supporters. That gives people an incentive to switch sides and to support the regime.
Moreover, only those working for the Hamas government can get a bank loan; families of casualties can get help from Hamas-controlled Islamic charities. The rest can get mortgages only with Islamic associations controlled by Hamas. Anybody involved in opposition activities would probably get turned down. And, of course, the people who do get help must be grateful to Hamas for the roof over their heads.
Finally, the way the project is being laid out looks to me as if it is being set up as a barrier to any future Israeli military operation into the Gaza Strip.
On one hand, it will create a dense network of narrow streets and buildings which can be more easily defended by guerrillas, likely to inflict more casualties on Israel’s soldiers.
On the other hand, it would be the architectural equivalent of a human shield, since Israeli forces would have to damage civilian apartments to engage Hamas men firing from them, thus creating a situation which could be falsely portrayed as a war crime.
At any rate, it should be rather impossible to speak about the Gaza Strip as deprived and suffering any more, though I suspect that won’t stop a lot of people from doing so. The article explains:
“There is apparently no shortage of money. Generous donations are flowing in from Iran, Islamic associations across the Arab worlds, and governmental elements in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Western elements.
“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been mercilessly pursuing Hamas in the West Bank, is aiding Gaza with millions of dollars, boasting that 57% of the Palestinian Authority budget is directed at the Strip. Abbas pays the salaries of 70,000 government workers from the post-Hamas era, maintains the health and education systems, and even funds some of Gaza's electricity production expenses.”
But Hamas no doubt will use part of the money for paying, training, and arming its soldiers and security men. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, however, Hamas is also putting in a tax system: value-added tax, income tax, tax on gas, and tax on all goods arriving from Israel. Bottom line: Hamas will take its cut of everything coming in and everything going on.
And how is the world responding to this? Well, Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair wants the sanctions reduced even further, presumably on the dangerously risky theory that if Hamas gets to be really wealthy and popular it will become moderate rather than better able to promote revolution and terrorism.
It is a good thing that Gazans will have nicer lives materially. But the same process will ensure that they will not have a better life in terms of freedom. With Hamas indoctrinating young people to become terrorists and even suicide bombers many of them will have shorter lives. And since Hamas is just preparing for another war with Israel—or provocations that will eventually lead to war—those apartments might not be there forever either.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Middle East: Where Crazed Extremism is the Average
By Barry Rubin
This is the kind of thing that really characterizes the situation in the Middle East. Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group even more radical than Hamas, held a rally in Gaza City which drew an estimated 100,000 people out of a population of approximately two million.
Since the Gaza population has a number of children far higher than the United States and women’s participation would also be limited, this is equivalent to a rally in the United States of, say, twenty million people.
Of course, this comparison would have to be adjusted for the short distances people would need to travel to participate in a Gaza rally, but the point is valid nonetheless. A demonstration for an extremist group in Gaza can draw something like forty times more than any possible collective activity of this sort might obtain in the United States.
Imagine how many people the Hamas regime might mobilize for a demonstration if it tried. Remember, this rally is in support of a movement that is exclusively terrorist, lacking even the comforting veneer of social welfare programs that lets groups like Hamas fool the most naive Westerners. Islamic Jihad stands for genocide against Jews, the destruction of Israel, no negotiations ever.
Not that Hamas, of course, is any great moderate force. Indeed, Hamas officials spoke at the rally, and often use Islamic Jihad as a cover. Oh, they’d say, we’re observing the ceasefire but we just can’t stop—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—Islamic Jihad from launching those rockets.
Think of the world view held by the participants and the huge number of Hamas and even Fatah supporters regarding how things work, what America is like, what Israel is like, or the most basic concepts of logic and reality held by Westerners. There is an enormous gulf here which will only be bridged many decades from now.
The demonstrators chanted, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” These aren’t metaphors: They mean it. So do Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood groups, and many others. In fact, so do the governments of Iran, Syria, and several more.
This is the kind of thing that really characterizes the situation in the Middle East. Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group even more radical than Hamas, held a rally in Gaza City which drew an estimated 100,000 people out of a population of approximately two million.
Since the Gaza population has a number of children far higher than the United States and women’s participation would also be limited, this is equivalent to a rally in the United States of, say, twenty million people.
Of course, this comparison would have to be adjusted for the short distances people would need to travel to participate in a Gaza rally, but the point is valid nonetheless. A demonstration for an extremist group in Gaza can draw something like forty times more than any possible collective activity of this sort might obtain in the United States.
Imagine how many people the Hamas regime might mobilize for a demonstration if it tried. Remember, this rally is in support of a movement that is exclusively terrorist, lacking even the comforting veneer of social welfare programs that lets groups like Hamas fool the most naive Westerners. Islamic Jihad stands for genocide against Jews, the destruction of Israel, no negotiations ever.
Not that Hamas, of course, is any great moderate force. Indeed, Hamas officials spoke at the rally, and often use Islamic Jihad as a cover. Oh, they’d say, we’re observing the ceasefire but we just can’t stop—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—Islamic Jihad from launching those rockets.
Think of the world view held by the participants and the huge number of Hamas and even Fatah supporters regarding how things work, what America is like, what Israel is like, or the most basic concepts of logic and reality held by Westerners. There is an enormous gulf here which will only be bridged many decades from now.
The demonstrators chanted, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” These aren’t metaphors: They mean it. So do Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood groups, and many others. In fact, so do the governments of Iran, Syria, and several more.
Friday, October 29, 2010
How Has U.S. Policy Toward Hamas and the Gaza Strip Turned Around 180 Degrees?
Please be subscriber 17,780 (and daily reader 19,290). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A reader asks what I meant when I wrote:
"Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?"
Here's my answer:
From the time Hamas seized the Gaza Strip until last summer, the U.S. government supported a strategy of trying to bring down the Hamas government. It did this by both political isolation and supporting embargos to minimize Gaza's imports and exports. The idea was that weakening Gaza's economy would weaken Hamas's rule.
At the same time, by lavishing aid on the PA-ruled West Bank, the United States and its allies would show that West Bankers were much better off because they were ruled by peace-oriented moderates. In other words, West Bankers would support the PA rather than Hamas because they were materially better off; Gazans would yearn for (and support a return of) PA rule because they were much worse off.
After the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010, however, President Barack Obama declared a new policy--though he never identified it explicitly as a new policy. Now, the US would provide a lot of aid to Gaza in the belief that it became more prosperous the citizens--apparently a strengthened middle class and businessmen--would bring down the regime in Gaza. Although they never said this explicitly, the implication seemed to be that they expected something like what happened in Eastern Europe in opposition to Soviet control and Communist rule.
The aid is to go to carefully designated and monitored projects. Whether or not that goal is achieved, however, the infusion of $400 million in U.S. aid directly (plus many millions more of U.S. aid filtered through the PA for supporting civil servants in Gaza (intended to bolster their support for Fatah) will have the effect of strengthening the Hamas regime.
Aid will reduce popular discontent against Hamas while letting Hamas divert some of this aid and a lot of funds that would otherwise have been needed to do some of these projects (and buy popular support) for terrorist/military purposes.
Thus, however well-intentioned or apparently clever the new policy may seem to Washington decisionmakers, its practical effect is to strengthen Hamas; undermine any hope for Israel-Palestinian peace; and to help establish a stable, long-term radical, terrorist, Islamist, anti-Western, and genocidally minded Iranian client state on the Mediterranean coast.
And to see how upset the Egyptian government is about this institutionalization of Hamas' rule in Gaza, read this.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A reader asks what I meant when I wrote:
"Should I mention the total reversal of U.S. policy on Hamas from trying to undermine that radical Islamist group's rule in the Gaza Strip to believing Hamas will fall if Gaza becomes prosperous?"
Here's my answer:
From the time Hamas seized the Gaza Strip until last summer, the U.S. government supported a strategy of trying to bring down the Hamas government. It did this by both political isolation and supporting embargos to minimize Gaza's imports and exports. The idea was that weakening Gaza's economy would weaken Hamas's rule.
At the same time, by lavishing aid on the PA-ruled West Bank, the United States and its allies would show that West Bankers were much better off because they were ruled by peace-oriented moderates. In other words, West Bankers would support the PA rather than Hamas because they were materially better off; Gazans would yearn for (and support a return of) PA rule because they were much worse off.
After the Gaza flotilla incident in 2010, however, President Barack Obama declared a new policy--though he never identified it explicitly as a new policy. Now, the US would provide a lot of aid to Gaza in the belief that it became more prosperous the citizens--apparently a strengthened middle class and businessmen--would bring down the regime in Gaza. Although they never said this explicitly, the implication seemed to be that they expected something like what happened in Eastern Europe in opposition to Soviet control and Communist rule.
The aid is to go to carefully designated and monitored projects. Whether or not that goal is achieved, however, the infusion of $400 million in U.S. aid directly (plus many millions more of U.S. aid filtered through the PA for supporting civil servants in Gaza (intended to bolster their support for Fatah) will have the effect of strengthening the Hamas regime.
Aid will reduce popular discontent against Hamas while letting Hamas divert some of this aid and a lot of funds that would otherwise have been needed to do some of these projects (and buy popular support) for terrorist/military purposes.
Thus, however well-intentioned or apparently clever the new policy may seem to Washington decisionmakers, its practical effect is to strengthen Hamas; undermine any hope for Israel-Palestinian peace; and to help establish a stable, long-term radical, terrorist, Islamist, anti-Western, and genocidally minded Iranian client state on the Mediterranean coast.
And to see how upset the Egyptian government is about this institutionalization of Hamas' rule in Gaza, read this.
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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
The Best Article On The Real Economic History and Situation of the Gaza Strip
By Barry Rubin
Michael Horesh provides the ultimate article on the Gaza Strip's economy showing how much mythology has gone into portraying it as a tragic disaster area due to you-know-who.
Note that during the 1990s' peace process era, when Palestinian violence was at low levels, tens of thousands worked in Israel bring prosperity to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Bad economic policies by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas rulers along with the refusal to make peace with Israel and the use of terrorist violence are the causes of economic problems.
Michael Horesh provides the ultimate article on the Gaza Strip's economy showing how much mythology has gone into portraying it as a tragic disaster area due to you-know-who.
Note that during the 1990s' peace process era, when Palestinian violence was at low levels, tens of thousands worked in Israel bring prosperity to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Bad economic policies by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas rulers along with the refusal to make peace with Israel and the use of terrorist violence are the causes of economic problems.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Egypt Versus Gaza
Please be subscriber 16,875. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
There is a bit of silver lining, even in the Gaza cloud. It’s this: the Egyptian government, aware that the West won’t help it get rid of the revolutionary Islamist regime there, that Israel cannot do it, and that Hamas won’t voluntarily accept subordination to the Palestinian Authority, now understands it has to protect itself from that threat.
For Egypt, the threat is multiple. Most directly, Hamas is a close ally to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a group that wants to overturn the nationalist regime and give Egypt an Islamist state that would enjoy all the blessings of Iran and Taliban Afghanistan. In or after their revolution, the Egyptian elite would be murdered and all of its property confiscated.
A second threat to Egypt comes from the fact that Hamas is an Iranian client. The days are long gone when Egypt could credibly present itself as the leader of the Arab world and the trend-setter for the region, but it still has a real national interest in what happens elsewhere in the area.
Iran is a threat to Egypt in four ways: Persian versus Arab; Shia versus Sunni; Islamist versus nationalist; and Iran versus Egypt on a state-to-state level of competition. One might well think of a hostile Gaza Strip in relation to Egypt as parallel to what a Communist Cuba has been to the United States.
Iran is a threat to Egypt in four ways: Persian versus Arab; Shia versus Sunni; Islamist versus nationalist; and Iran versus Egypt on a state-to-state level of competition. One might well think of a hostile Gaza Strip in relation to Egypt as parallel to what a Communist Cuba has been to the United States.
On a third level, Gaza could easily become a safe haven for terrorists operating against Egypt. Any weapon smuggled into Gaza, for example, could reappear some day in an attack on tourists in Cairo.
With Egypt approaching its first "normal" transition of leadership in forty years the government seems to be all the more nervous about such things.
(President Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1970 and there was a short-lived but potentially dangerous factional battle, but when President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 the elite united and Husni Mubarak had no trouble gaining full power.)
So what can Egypt do? It doesn’t want to rule Gaza, as it did between 1948 and 1967. Why ingest such a headache, to mix metaphors. And Egypt’s obvious though not explicit support for Israel’s 2008-2009 retaliation against Hamas’s war brought it criticism. Egypt has also tried and failed to play mediator between Hamas and the PA. Cairo also knows it cannot depend on the United States (who can do so nowadays?)
Thus, the best Egyptian option is to isolate the contagion. An entire new Egyptian security system, with more troops and several zones of control, has been established. A wall has been constructed to prevent Gazans from breaking through and houses have been demolished near the border line. Stepped-up efforts try to control smuggling.
The government has made it clear that nothing crosses the border without its permission, though it isn’t able to enforce that completely of course. I haven’t seen figures on successful smuggling and—truth be told—a lot of Egyptian officials like bribes. So I cannot say how much they have cut down on the cross-border commerce. But they are trying harder.
Remember, the Hamas regime is not just a threat to Israel but to Egypt. Egypt’s government doesn’t forget that for a moment.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Hamas Attacks UN Summer Camp For Not Being a Terrorist Training Camp
Please be subscriber 16,733. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Hamas has twice violently attacked UN summer camps in the Gaza Strip in order to destroy them and intimidate kids from attending them. The goal is to force young people to go to Hamas summer camps where they will be given military and ideological training to teach them to be future terrorists.
The UN actually condemned the attacks and the Hamas regime for fomenting them.
I’m not complaining about this article—a small drop in the ocean of needed media coverage of Hamas’s repression and extremism—but one sentence caught my eye. The UN, “camps provide a rare distraction from the hardships endured by more than 250,000 Palestinian refugees that live in the Gaza Strip.”
Unlike many others, this article doesn’t blame Israel for all of these problems but it is also worth recalling why refugees still live in camps. Prior to turning over the Gaza Strip to rule by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Israel at times tried to resettle the refugees in new housing. This step was not only opposed by the PLO—which wanted to keep the refugees in temporary housing until their triumphant return to a Palestine built on the smoldering remains of a destroyed Israel—but by a UN resolution. And so Israel abandoned the effort.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) ruled the Gaza Strip for more than a dozen years and received lavish aid funding, some of it specifically earmarked for new housing. But it was PA policy never to move refugees into new housing, for the same reason as before. Their suffering was good propaganda abroad and also was intended to keep the refugees in a dissatisfied state of mind so they would support continuing the battle until total victory and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.
So why do refugees in the Gaza Strip and West Bank live in refugee camps today? For the same reason that there is no Palestinian state: Because of decisions made by the Palestinian leadership, both nationalist and Islamist.
There is no way anyone can refute these points, they can only ignore them.
The article also repeats another fallacy in referring to Hamas as “the Islamic movement that came to power through elections in 2007 and whose legitimacy the U.N. does not fully recognize….”
In fact, Hamas did not come to rule the Gaza Strip due to elections, which did give it a parliamentary majority, but through a bloody and unprovoked coup against the PA. If it had not seized power, it is likely there would be no embargo against the Gaza Strip today nor would there have been any war last year—with the accompanying destruction and loss of life--caused by a Hamas attack on Israel.
Again, I am not complaining about this specific article, which is far better than most, or about the UN response it reports, which should be far more common, but merely pointing out how difficult it is—and yet how important it is—to understand the context of the Gaza Strip today.
Let me repeat that the Gaza Strip is at present, albeit not internationally recognized as a state, a radical Islamist dictatorship run by a terrorist group seeking genocide, preaching antisemitism, suppressing women, forcing the departure of Christians, teaching its children to become suicide bombers, planning a future war with Israel, likely to subvert Egypt, acting as a client of Iran, and seeking to expel all Western influence from the region.
Any discussion about aiding the regime to stay in power or engaging it diplomatically should start by dealing with the previous paragraph.
And if all this is too heavy and somber for you, watch this funny—but very true—skit about how the UN usually works and deals with Israel. And here's a very cautious discussion by a Gazan woman activist on conditions where she points out that Hamas has not gone further because it is trying to win over Western support on the embargo and other issues.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Hamas has twice violently attacked UN summer camps in the Gaza Strip in order to destroy them and intimidate kids from attending them. The goal is to force young people to go to Hamas summer camps where they will be given military and ideological training to teach them to be future terrorists.
The UN actually condemned the attacks and the Hamas regime for fomenting them.
I’m not complaining about this article—a small drop in the ocean of needed media coverage of Hamas’s repression and extremism—but one sentence caught my eye. The UN, “camps provide a rare distraction from the hardships endured by more than 250,000 Palestinian refugees that live in the Gaza Strip.”
Unlike many others, this article doesn’t blame Israel for all of these problems but it is also worth recalling why refugees still live in camps. Prior to turning over the Gaza Strip to rule by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Israel at times tried to resettle the refugees in new housing. This step was not only opposed by the PLO—which wanted to keep the refugees in temporary housing until their triumphant return to a Palestine built on the smoldering remains of a destroyed Israel—but by a UN resolution. And so Israel abandoned the effort.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) ruled the Gaza Strip for more than a dozen years and received lavish aid funding, some of it specifically earmarked for new housing. But it was PA policy never to move refugees into new housing, for the same reason as before. Their suffering was good propaganda abroad and also was intended to keep the refugees in a dissatisfied state of mind so they would support continuing the battle until total victory and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.
So why do refugees in the Gaza Strip and West Bank live in refugee camps today? For the same reason that there is no Palestinian state: Because of decisions made by the Palestinian leadership, both nationalist and Islamist.
There is no way anyone can refute these points, they can only ignore them.
The article also repeats another fallacy in referring to Hamas as “the Islamic movement that came to power through elections in 2007 and whose legitimacy the U.N. does not fully recognize….”
In fact, Hamas did not come to rule the Gaza Strip due to elections, which did give it a parliamentary majority, but through a bloody and unprovoked coup against the PA. If it had not seized power, it is likely there would be no embargo against the Gaza Strip today nor would there have been any war last year—with the accompanying destruction and loss of life--caused by a Hamas attack on Israel.
Again, I am not complaining about this specific article, which is far better than most, or about the UN response it reports, which should be far more common, but merely pointing out how difficult it is—and yet how important it is—to understand the context of the Gaza Strip today.
Let me repeat that the Gaza Strip is at present, albeit not internationally recognized as a state, a radical Islamist dictatorship run by a terrorist group seeking genocide, preaching antisemitism, suppressing women, forcing the departure of Christians, teaching its children to become suicide bombers, planning a future war with Israel, likely to subvert Egypt, acting as a client of Iran, and seeking to expel all Western influence from the region.
Any discussion about aiding the regime to stay in power or engaging it diplomatically should start by dealing with the previous paragraph.
And if all this is too heavy and somber for you, watch this funny—but very true—skit about how the UN usually works and deals with Israel. And here's a very cautious discussion by a Gazan woman activist on conditions where she points out that Hamas has not gone further because it is trying to win over Western support on the embargo and other issues.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
"Smoking Guns": Gaza Flotilla Documents Indicate Real Goal Political, Not Humanitarian
By Barry Rubin
Ah, remember the days when the media did research and tried to find out the real story? Check out these captured documents from the Gaza flotilla that show: 1. The organizers knew their goal was helping Hamas and 2. The mission was to do so by ending the sanctions. The goal was not to help Gaza's people by delivering "humanitarian" supplies.
Will you see any of these--and other, previously released items--quoted in the mass media after being checked out to ensure they are genuine (as opposed to the immediate broadcasting of every undocumented wild claim against Israel)? Don't hold your breath. Here's probably the only place you will be able to find them.
Ah, remember the days when the media did research and tried to find out the real story? Check out these captured documents from the Gaza flotilla that show: 1. The organizers knew their goal was helping Hamas and 2. The mission was to do so by ending the sanctions. The goal was not to help Gaza's people by delivering "humanitarian" supplies.
Will you see any of these--and other, previously released items--quoted in the mass media after being checked out to ensure they are genuine (as opposed to the immediate broadcasting of every undocumented wild claim against Israel)? Don't hold your breath. Here's probably the only place you will be able to find them.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Gaza: Reader Questions
By Barry Rubin
1. What should one say in response to claims that by easing sanctions on the Gaza Strip Israel admits they were never necessary or that sanctions can merely be limited to military equipment?
Answer: The key element is that formerly Israel was trying to bring down the Hamas regime for very good reasons. That was the right thing to do and the world should have supported it. Overthrowing Hamas is a Western interest since Hamas will spread revolution to Egypt and other countries, attack Israel in future, prevent the Palestinian Authority from making peace, and repress the people in the Gaza Strip.
Note how in a similar manner Western states essentially protected (and protect) Hizballah in Lebanon, thus ensuring the spread there of Syrian and Iranian influence and the likelihood of war there as well.
This is not just a humanitarian issue but rather the need to oppose a threat from an antisemitic, genocide-oriented, revolutionary Islamist regime which expels Christians, treats women horribly and is an Iranian client on the Mediterranean.
What Israel was doing before was using economic sanctions to limit Hamas's ability to be popular and reward its supporters (including terrorists). Remember this was completely in tune with the Western policy of helping the Palestinian Authority and punishing Hamas so that Palestinians would conclude that moderation and peacemaking was more in their interest.
2. Would leaving the blockade in place have eventually resulted in the collapse of Hamas control in Gaza?
Answer: It is impossible to say but perhaps Hamas would have been brought down. At least there was a chance for doing so. Remember that in this as in other cases sanctions had three purposes other than "persuading" the other side to change its policy:
A. Minimize the resources they have for waging war and maintaining political control;
B. Signal to factions to become more moderate or to quarrel among themselves while giving the masses an incentive to overthrow the regime (both because it wasn't delivering the goods, because it was weaker, and because they felt that they had international support for a revolt.
C. Signal to others that this is a losing side and they should not support it also lest they, too suffer from sanctions.
On the other hand, other critical elements for bringing down Hamas were missing:
A. Israel was not allowed to achieve victory.
B. International support for a "rollback" policy was lacking.
C. There was not a strong and determined opposition effort by Fatah to help bring down Hamas.
3. Wasn't the embargo actually strengthening Hamas since it controls imports via tunnels?
Answer: But Hamas will still have control of tunnels and now will seize control of most of the aid, too. The exception might be to limited amounts of construction materials for specific, mainly UN projects. Apartments being built will be used by Hamas as rewards for its supporters and martyrs. Medical supplies will go to Hamas fighters as a top priority. Educational supplies will be used to indoctrinate students, and so on.
4. What is Israeli policy now?
Answer: Containment. Israel will defend itself from Hamas, minimalize the arms and dual use equipment Hamas can receive. Fight Hamas as is needed. Prevent the spread of Hamas power and weaponry to the West Bank. But Israel recogizes that there's no solution.
1. What should one say in response to claims that by easing sanctions on the Gaza Strip Israel admits they were never necessary or that sanctions can merely be limited to military equipment?
Answer: The key element is that formerly Israel was trying to bring down the Hamas regime for very good reasons. That was the right thing to do and the world should have supported it. Overthrowing Hamas is a Western interest since Hamas will spread revolution to Egypt and other countries, attack Israel in future, prevent the Palestinian Authority from making peace, and repress the people in the Gaza Strip.
Note how in a similar manner Western states essentially protected (and protect) Hizballah in Lebanon, thus ensuring the spread there of Syrian and Iranian influence and the likelihood of war there as well.
This is not just a humanitarian issue but rather the need to oppose a threat from an antisemitic, genocide-oriented, revolutionary Islamist regime which expels Christians, treats women horribly and is an Iranian client on the Mediterranean.
What Israel was doing before was using economic sanctions to limit Hamas's ability to be popular and reward its supporters (including terrorists). Remember this was completely in tune with the Western policy of helping the Palestinian Authority and punishing Hamas so that Palestinians would conclude that moderation and peacemaking was more in their interest.
2. Would leaving the blockade in place have eventually resulted in the collapse of Hamas control in Gaza?
Answer: It is impossible to say but perhaps Hamas would have been brought down. At least there was a chance for doing so. Remember that in this as in other cases sanctions had three purposes other than "persuading" the other side to change its policy:
A. Minimize the resources they have for waging war and maintaining political control;
B. Signal to factions to become more moderate or to quarrel among themselves while giving the masses an incentive to overthrow the regime (both because it wasn't delivering the goods, because it was weaker, and because they felt that they had international support for a revolt.
C. Signal to others that this is a losing side and they should not support it also lest they, too suffer from sanctions.
On the other hand, other critical elements for bringing down Hamas were missing:
A. Israel was not allowed to achieve victory.
B. International support for a "rollback" policy was lacking.
C. There was not a strong and determined opposition effort by Fatah to help bring down Hamas.
3. Wasn't the embargo actually strengthening Hamas since it controls imports via tunnels?
Answer: But Hamas will still have control of tunnels and now will seize control of most of the aid, too. The exception might be to limited amounts of construction materials for specific, mainly UN projects. Apartments being built will be used by Hamas as rewards for its supporters and martyrs. Medical supplies will go to Hamas fighters as a top priority. Educational supplies will be used to indoctrinate students, and so on.
4. What is Israeli policy now?
Answer: Containment. Israel will defend itself from Hamas, minimalize the arms and dual use equipment Hamas can receive. Fight Hamas as is needed. Prevent the spread of Hamas power and weaponry to the West Bank. But Israel recogizes that there's no solution.
Monday, June 21, 2010
A Bit More on the Gaza Strip Diplomacy
ePlease be subscriber 16,663. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Elsewhere, I have explained in great detail the changes in Israeli policy as well as the implications of Western policy in the Gaza Strip: economic normalization meaning also normalization of the existence of a Gaza Hamas-ruled statelet.
Israel, seeing that there is not going to be any "rollback" to remove Hamas from power has basically accepted a containment startegy of limited the military weaponry and capability of Hamas. Thus, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained:
"The cabinet decision is the best one for Israel because it eliminates Hamas' main propaganda claim and allows us and our international allies to face our real concerns in the realm of security."
This is true as far as it goes except now Hamas merely switches to other supply matters--the quantity of goods, defining certain things as having no military value, demanding export rights--and even more important it forces Israel to drop its goal of bringing down the regime. As I noted earlier, this is not really a concession because, sadly, it was already clear that this was impossible given Western protection of the Hamas government.
But these countries are not finished yet in trying to improve the population's situation while actually helping Hamas.
The U.S. government and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the Quartet negotiator have been critical of Israel's concessions as insufficient. While Israel is offering 130 truckloads a day of non-military goods and construction material only for demonstrably non-military projects, the U.S. and European governments want 400 trucks a day, which is what some aid agencies say is needed.
In addition, they want the Gaza Strip to be able to export goods, mainly agricultural, in order to make money.
On one level, the whole debate is absurd since they could just ask Egypt to open the border to this extent. But, of course, the intention is to pressure Israel. Ironically, if they demanded Egypt let more supplies be sent in, this would run up against Cairo's argument that it doesn't want to strengthen a revolutionary Islamist statelet on its own border.
It is amazing to see the extent to which the Western politicians are simply 100 percent deaf to the strategic implications of these issues. They don't want a Hamas regime attacking Israel or one that's militarily strengthened, but they just don't understand that any Hamas regime is going to attack Israel eventually--and not that far in the future.
The concept that a Hamas regime is going to spread revolutionary Islamism, subvert Israel, make any peace agreement impossible, strengthen Iranian influence in the Arab world, or do a half-dozen other things damaging to regional stability and Western influence does not seem to be crossing their minds.
It is easy to call Western leaders and diplomats names (fools, idiots, etc.) or to make fun of them. Yet on this specific failure such a response seems especially appropriate.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Elsewhere, I have explained in great detail the changes in Israeli policy as well as the implications of Western policy in the Gaza Strip: economic normalization meaning also normalization of the existence of a Gaza Hamas-ruled statelet.
Israel, seeing that there is not going to be any "rollback" to remove Hamas from power has basically accepted a containment startegy of limited the military weaponry and capability of Hamas. Thus, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained:
"The cabinet decision is the best one for Israel because it eliminates Hamas' main propaganda claim and allows us and our international allies to face our real concerns in the realm of security."
This is true as far as it goes except now Hamas merely switches to other supply matters--the quantity of goods, defining certain things as having no military value, demanding export rights--and even more important it forces Israel to drop its goal of bringing down the regime. As I noted earlier, this is not really a concession because, sadly, it was already clear that this was impossible given Western protection of the Hamas government.
But these countries are not finished yet in trying to improve the population's situation while actually helping Hamas.
The U.S. government and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the Quartet negotiator have been critical of Israel's concessions as insufficient. While Israel is offering 130 truckloads a day of non-military goods and construction material only for demonstrably non-military projects, the U.S. and European governments want 400 trucks a day, which is what some aid agencies say is needed.
In addition, they want the Gaza Strip to be able to export goods, mainly agricultural, in order to make money.
On one level, the whole debate is absurd since they could just ask Egypt to open the border to this extent. But, of course, the intention is to pressure Israel. Ironically, if they demanded Egypt let more supplies be sent in, this would run up against Cairo's argument that it doesn't want to strengthen a revolutionary Islamist statelet on its own border.
It is amazing to see the extent to which the Western politicians are simply 100 percent deaf to the strategic implications of these issues. They don't want a Hamas regime attacking Israel or one that's militarily strengthened, but they just don't understand that any Hamas regime is going to attack Israel eventually--and not that far in the future.
The concept that a Hamas regime is going to spread revolutionary Islamism, subvert Israel, make any peace agreement impossible, strengthen Iranian influence in the Arab world, or do a half-dozen other things damaging to regional stability and Western influence does not seem to be crossing their minds.
It is easy to call Western leaders and diplomats names (fools, idiots, etc.) or to make fun of them. Yet on this specific failure such a response seems especially appropriate.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Flash: Israel Revises Gaza Policy; World Gets What it Wants: Terrorist, Genocidal, Antisemitic, Revolutionary Islamist Statelet on the Mediterranean
Please be subscriber 16,651. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions in order to bring you the news and analysis that will appear in the mass media months or years from now.
Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Israel has looked for a policy that preserves its security to the maximum extent, undermines Hamas as much as possible, and reduces international criticism, in that order of priority. Thus, the cabinet has approved an altered strategy on the Gaza Strip.
The main principle can be summarized as placing the emphasis on anything that can be used for military purposes against Israel but easing up on the destabilizing effort. This makes sense since the international community's protection of the Hamas regime--despite the fact that it is a revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocide-intending, anti-Western client of Iran that will fight Israel and subvert Egypt in future--makes its overthrow impossible any way.
The June 20 cabinet decision states:
"Israel’s policy is to protect its citizens against terror, rocket and other attacks from Gaza. In seeking to keep weapons and war materiel out of Gaza while liberalizing the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza...."
Thus, the first principle is:
1. Publish a list of items not permitted into Gaza that is limited to weapons and war materiel, including problematic dual-use items. All items not on this list will be permitted to enter Gaza.
This is a great contraction of previous lists. A range of construction materials--cement, which can also be used for military bunkers; pipes that can be used for making rockets--must be watched closely. Hence, point 2:
2. Enable and expand the inflow of dual-use construction materials for approved PA-authorized projects (schools, health facilities, water, sanitation, etc.) that are under international supervision and for housing projects such as the U.N. housing development being completed at Khan Yunis. Israel intends to accelerate the approval of such projects in accordance with accepted mechanisms and procedures.
The theory is that international agencies will make sure the materiels are used for building nice things, not pillboxes and reinforced bunkers. No doubt Israel will report on whether this promise is kept (though reports to the contrary will probably be ignored)
The land crossings will be expanded to admit more materials at a faster rate for sending into the Gaza Strip, and procedures for letting people leave to get medical treatment or other purposes will be streamlined..
What does Israel get in exchange?
The decision states: "The current security regime for Gaza will be maintained. Israel reiterates that along with the U.S., EU and others, it considers Hamas a terrorist organization. The international community must insist on a strict adherence to the Quartet principles regarding Hamas." In other words there will be the continued political isolation of Hamas which, by the way, is still holding Gilad Shalit captive.
What does Israel give up? The entire strategy of trying to reduce Gaza's economy and the rewards that Hamas can give its supporters. In other words, while Hamas's military capacity is kept as low as possible it can politically consolidate and stay in power for decades. While this represents a considerable "retreat" it is not so meaningful in practice since--as noted above--nobody is going to help Israel or allow it to overthrow the regime in Gaza.
As if that's not bad enough. Obama administration officials and Quartet negotiator Tony Blair complained that Israel had didn’t give enough unilateral concessions. It should be clear by now that no matter what Israel does this U.S. government will never return the favor but simply line up for the next unilateral concession. Israeli governments will bear this in mind; Western media will fail to understand why Israel rejects demands by those who neither keep their promises nor provide benefits for increased risks.
So, this is the future: A revolutionary Islamist statelet, an outpost of Iran, a base for spreading terrorism and subversion, a source for genocidal antisemitic propaganda has been established for the long term on the shores of the Mediterranean. For all practical purposes, one could have made this declaration tentatively two or four years ago. Now it is clear.
Some people might find the above paragraph to be controversial. But it is all obvious. Hamas will be in power in the Gaza Strip for a long time. Who is going to remove it? It is a client of Iran. Certainly it is under embargo for arms but it does function a lot like an independent state for daily practical purposes. It will return to war against Israel at the first opportunity. It teaches its children to hate the West, be terrorists, kill Jews and wipe Israel off the map.
That doesn't mean all Gazans support it, but those who don't can do nothing about it. Moreover, the Hamas regime receives indirect aid due to the Palestinian Authority paying much of its civil service and Western projects designed to help its people.
Yes, of course there are limits on what it can do given its size and the pressure still put on by Egypt and Israel. But indeed the above paragraph is an accurate description. Putting it bluntly sounds harsh, but the reality is harsh indeed.
And what could be more ironic than the fact that Western governments frantic for an Israeli-Palestinian peace have just helped put one more gigantic roadblock in the way of such an outcome? Even without Hamas ruling almost half of those under Palestinian rule, the Palestinian Authority probably wouldn't be able to make peace. The consolidation of a Hamas state makes that inability a certainty.
While a change in Israeli policy can be said to mark this new era, the outcome should not be blamed on the Israeli government since the situation was already in place and made inevitable by Western policy. The world has no idea what it has done, how many bad things and how much bloodshed will arise from this failure. In future, it will become very familiar with this reality. People will write about this being true in five or ten years. You are reading about it right now.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions in order to bring you the news and analysis that will appear in the mass media months or years from now.
Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Israel has looked for a policy that preserves its security to the maximum extent, undermines Hamas as much as possible, and reduces international criticism, in that order of priority. Thus, the cabinet has approved an altered strategy on the Gaza Strip.
The main principle can be summarized as placing the emphasis on anything that can be used for military purposes against Israel but easing up on the destabilizing effort. This makes sense since the international community's protection of the Hamas regime--despite the fact that it is a revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocide-intending, anti-Western client of Iran that will fight Israel and subvert Egypt in future--makes its overthrow impossible any way.
The June 20 cabinet decision states:
"Israel’s policy is to protect its citizens against terror, rocket and other attacks from Gaza. In seeking to keep weapons and war materiel out of Gaza while liberalizing the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza...."
Thus, the first principle is:
1. Publish a list of items not permitted into Gaza that is limited to weapons and war materiel, including problematic dual-use items. All items not on this list will be permitted to enter Gaza.
This is a great contraction of previous lists. A range of construction materials--cement, which can also be used for military bunkers; pipes that can be used for making rockets--must be watched closely. Hence, point 2:
2. Enable and expand the inflow of dual-use construction materials for approved PA-authorized projects (schools, health facilities, water, sanitation, etc.) that are under international supervision and for housing projects such as the U.N. housing development being completed at Khan Yunis. Israel intends to accelerate the approval of such projects in accordance with accepted mechanisms and procedures.
The theory is that international agencies will make sure the materiels are used for building nice things, not pillboxes and reinforced bunkers. No doubt Israel will report on whether this promise is kept (though reports to the contrary will probably be ignored)
The land crossings will be expanded to admit more materials at a faster rate for sending into the Gaza Strip, and procedures for letting people leave to get medical treatment or other purposes will be streamlined..
What does Israel get in exchange?
The decision states: "The current security regime for Gaza will be maintained. Israel reiterates that along with the U.S., EU and others, it considers Hamas a terrorist organization. The international community must insist on a strict adherence to the Quartet principles regarding Hamas." In other words there will be the continued political isolation of Hamas which, by the way, is still holding Gilad Shalit captive.
What does Israel give up? The entire strategy of trying to reduce Gaza's economy and the rewards that Hamas can give its supporters. In other words, while Hamas's military capacity is kept as low as possible it can politically consolidate and stay in power for decades. While this represents a considerable "retreat" it is not so meaningful in practice since--as noted above--nobody is going to help Israel or allow it to overthrow the regime in Gaza.
As if that's not bad enough. Obama administration officials and Quartet negotiator Tony Blair complained that Israel had didn’t give enough unilateral concessions. It should be clear by now that no matter what Israel does this U.S. government will never return the favor but simply line up for the next unilateral concession. Israeli governments will bear this in mind; Western media will fail to understand why Israel rejects demands by those who neither keep their promises nor provide benefits for increased risks.
So, this is the future: A revolutionary Islamist statelet, an outpost of Iran, a base for spreading terrorism and subversion, a source for genocidal antisemitic propaganda has been established for the long term on the shores of the Mediterranean. For all practical purposes, one could have made this declaration tentatively two or four years ago. Now it is clear.
Some people might find the above paragraph to be controversial. But it is all obvious. Hamas will be in power in the Gaza Strip for a long time. Who is going to remove it? It is a client of Iran. Certainly it is under embargo for arms but it does function a lot like an independent state for daily practical purposes. It will return to war against Israel at the first opportunity. It teaches its children to hate the West, be terrorists, kill Jews and wipe Israel off the map.
That doesn't mean all Gazans support it, but those who don't can do nothing about it. Moreover, the Hamas regime receives indirect aid due to the Palestinian Authority paying much of its civil service and Western projects designed to help its people.
Yes, of course there are limits on what it can do given its size and the pressure still put on by Egypt and Israel. But indeed the above paragraph is an accurate description. Putting it bluntly sounds harsh, but the reality is harsh indeed.
And what could be more ironic than the fact that Western governments frantic for an Israeli-Palestinian peace have just helped put one more gigantic roadblock in the way of such an outcome? Even without Hamas ruling almost half of those under Palestinian rule, the Palestinian Authority probably wouldn't be able to make peace. The consolidation of a Hamas state makes that inability a certainty.
While a change in Israeli policy can be said to mark this new era, the outcome should not be blamed on the Israeli government since the situation was already in place and made inevitable by Western policy. The world has no idea what it has done, how many bad things and how much bloodshed will arise from this failure. In future, it will become very familiar with this reality. People will write about this being true in five or ten years. You are reading about it right now.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Fun With Idiocy: You Don't Need to Know Anything About the Middle East to Have a Plan for Solving All its Problems
Please be subscriber 16,652. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
You don't need to know anything about the Middle East to have a PLAN for solving all its problems. You only need to know something if you are going to produce a strategy that works.
Everyone has a solution for the Gaza Strip and, of course, for the Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflict in general. I remember how at some distinguished panel in Europe an erstwhile British think-tanker had the brilliant idea of having NATO troops patrolling the West Bank and Gaza Strip, never engaging with the point that I made: What do they do when either dissatisfied or radical Palestinians started shooting at them for doing something (like stopping attacks on Israel?) they didn’t like?
We have seen the dramatic failure—well, not dramatic since it is generally ignored outside of Israel—of the grand UN scheme of 2006 to keep Hizballah from rearming and returning to south Lebanon. They fail, and fail, and don’t keep their promises, then wonder why Israelis aren’t willing to pin their survival on such gimmicks.
And you may have noticed my pointing out that the Obama Administration wrecked Israel-Palestinian talks for 15 months by unilaterally raising the idea that all Israeli construction on settlements stop. Now Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has explicitly confirmed how damaging the U.S. policy was:
"Abbas blamed the hold-up in talks on the White House, noting that they had raised the issue of settlements: `They are the ones who requested for the Israelis to stop settlements, what do you expect of me? Less than them?' he was quoted saying in paraphrase."
Note: Apparently the Obama Administration understandably--and correctly--has urged Abbas to move up to direct talks with Israel. Let's see if Abbas complies or ignores Obama. And if he ignores Obama, will the United States do or say anything to pressure him? I doubt it but let's watch and see.
If I were to design an ecumenical prayer for these circumstances it would go like this: “Oh, Lord, please keep the ignorant and arrogant from interfering with my life and foisting their schemes on me.”
Any way, here are two new ideas. First, for comic relief
The British and Swiss have put forward proposals on how the Europeans can help maintain a focused embargo to keep arms out of Gaza while letting in other goods. Unfortunately, this is basically what they tried more than five years ago that failed miserably.
I will never forget a friend in the Israeli army stationed there describing humorously how this worked. A couple of European officers sat on the Egypt-Gaza border in total bewilderment, never intervening with anything coming across the border. Think of a spectator at a particularly one-sided tennis match who keeps turning his head from left to right as the game goes on. They were worthless and when violence erupted they ran away. End of European supervision.
Another item. There’s an important clue to U.S. and European thinking buried in a New York Times article on the Gaza Strip. Here’s the relevant material:
“Mahmoud Daher of the World Health Organization estimated that political loyalties in Gaza divided into equal [one-]thirds: pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian Authority and independent, many in the private sector. He has been telling foreign officials that if they helped foster businesses, there could eventually be a majority coalition of non-Hamas parties here.”
So this is what lies behind President Obama’s let-Gaza-prosper strategy, the belief that if there is a stronger middle class that just wants to do business, the pragmatic sector will grow and all the non-Hamas parties will become the majority and take over.
True, this might have worked to some extent in Soviet bloc Central Europe and even to some extent in China but the Middle East doesn’t fit that model. Here we see the inability of people so smart that they cannot understand other societies are really different to visualize an ideological dictatorship at the peak of its power and quite ready to murder people:
Consider:
--The regime decides who does or doesn’t do business on the basis of loyalty, pay-offs, and giving its officials a big cut. So if you want to make money, perhaps you better not trouble the guys with guns or challenge the status quo. Incidentally, this is how Middle East societies have kept the independent middle class at bay and is one reason why there isn't much democracy.
--With “politics in command,” as Mao Zedong put it, the business sector, and indeed the living standards of the masses, are subordinated to the struggle. If Hamas wants to launch a war against Israel it isn’t going to worry about the damage to infrastructure, as we have already seen.
Everywhere in the world, the common people may just want the "same thing," a bigger refrigerator, a car, and better education for their children. The thing about dictatorships, however, is that nobody asks them their opinion and instead to some extent shapes their opinion through ideology, force, and indoctrination.
--No opposition parties are permitted to function in the Gaza Strip and those individuals too active on behalf of Fatah are periodically arrested, lightly tortured, and inhibited from acting.
--Fatah folk spend a good bit of their time trying to prove they are just as militant, or more so, in fighting Israel and the West as their Hamas rivals.
--Hamas people really believe that the deity is on their side, that their enemies are satanic, and that victory is inevitable. If you want to get some sense of the intensity of this passion, take an Ivy League professor’s view of the Tea Party people and multiply it by ten. Except that in Hamas there is willingness to torture, maim and kill, along with the belief in divine guidance. [This space left blank so you can insert a suitable joke.]
--There aren’t elections in the Gaza Strip so if you get a majority what difference does it make? To quote Mao again, in this case political power really does come out of a barrel of a gun.
And if you still aren’t persuaded, just consider how successful the strategy of promote business, build prosperity, and raise living standards as the road to democracy plus moderation has worked in such places as Islamist Iran, Syria, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
By the way, if you take the middle initial of the last U.S. president, “W,” and that of the current U.S. president, “H,” you get the initials for White House. Coincidence? Or perhaps the basis for a new Middle East peace plan!
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
You don't need to know anything about the Middle East to have a PLAN for solving all its problems. You only need to know something if you are going to produce a strategy that works.
Everyone has a solution for the Gaza Strip and, of course, for the Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflict in general. I remember how at some distinguished panel in Europe an erstwhile British think-tanker had the brilliant idea of having NATO troops patrolling the West Bank and Gaza Strip, never engaging with the point that I made: What do they do when either dissatisfied or radical Palestinians started shooting at them for doing something (like stopping attacks on Israel?) they didn’t like?
We have seen the dramatic failure—well, not dramatic since it is generally ignored outside of Israel—of the grand UN scheme of 2006 to keep Hizballah from rearming and returning to south Lebanon. They fail, and fail, and don’t keep their promises, then wonder why Israelis aren’t willing to pin their survival on such gimmicks.
And you may have noticed my pointing out that the Obama Administration wrecked Israel-Palestinian talks for 15 months by unilaterally raising the idea that all Israeli construction on settlements stop. Now Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has explicitly confirmed how damaging the U.S. policy was:
"Abbas blamed the hold-up in talks on the White House, noting that they had raised the issue of settlements: `They are the ones who requested for the Israelis to stop settlements, what do you expect of me? Less than them?' he was quoted saying in paraphrase."
Note: Apparently the Obama Administration understandably--and correctly--has urged Abbas to move up to direct talks with Israel. Let's see if Abbas complies or ignores Obama. And if he ignores Obama, will the United States do or say anything to pressure him? I doubt it but let's watch and see.
If I were to design an ecumenical prayer for these circumstances it would go like this: “Oh, Lord, please keep the ignorant and arrogant from interfering with my life and foisting their schemes on me.”
Any way, here are two new ideas. First, for comic relief
The British and Swiss have put forward proposals on how the Europeans can help maintain a focused embargo to keep arms out of Gaza while letting in other goods. Unfortunately, this is basically what they tried more than five years ago that failed miserably.
I will never forget a friend in the Israeli army stationed there describing humorously how this worked. A couple of European officers sat on the Egypt-Gaza border in total bewilderment, never intervening with anything coming across the border. Think of a spectator at a particularly one-sided tennis match who keeps turning his head from left to right as the game goes on. They were worthless and when violence erupted they ran away. End of European supervision.
Another item. There’s an important clue to U.S. and European thinking buried in a New York Times article on the Gaza Strip. Here’s the relevant material:
“Mahmoud Daher of the World Health Organization estimated that political loyalties in Gaza divided into equal [one-]thirds: pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian Authority and independent, many in the private sector. He has been telling foreign officials that if they helped foster businesses, there could eventually be a majority coalition of non-Hamas parties here.”
So this is what lies behind President Obama’s let-Gaza-prosper strategy, the belief that if there is a stronger middle class that just wants to do business, the pragmatic sector will grow and all the non-Hamas parties will become the majority and take over.
True, this might have worked to some extent in Soviet bloc Central Europe and even to some extent in China but the Middle East doesn’t fit that model. Here we see the inability of people so smart that they cannot understand other societies are really different to visualize an ideological dictatorship at the peak of its power and quite ready to murder people:
Consider:
--The regime decides who does or doesn’t do business on the basis of loyalty, pay-offs, and giving its officials a big cut. So if you want to make money, perhaps you better not trouble the guys with guns or challenge the status quo. Incidentally, this is how Middle East societies have kept the independent middle class at bay and is one reason why there isn't much democracy.
--With “politics in command,” as Mao Zedong put it, the business sector, and indeed the living standards of the masses, are subordinated to the struggle. If Hamas wants to launch a war against Israel it isn’t going to worry about the damage to infrastructure, as we have already seen.
Everywhere in the world, the common people may just want the "same thing," a bigger refrigerator, a car, and better education for their children. The thing about dictatorships, however, is that nobody asks them their opinion and instead to some extent shapes their opinion through ideology, force, and indoctrination.
--No opposition parties are permitted to function in the Gaza Strip and those individuals too active on behalf of Fatah are periodically arrested, lightly tortured, and inhibited from acting.
--Fatah folk spend a good bit of their time trying to prove they are just as militant, or more so, in fighting Israel and the West as their Hamas rivals.
--Hamas people really believe that the deity is on their side, that their enemies are satanic, and that victory is inevitable. If you want to get some sense of the intensity of this passion, take an Ivy League professor’s view of the Tea Party people and multiply it by ten. Except that in Hamas there is willingness to torture, maim and kill, along with the belief in divine guidance. [This space left blank so you can insert a suitable joke.]
--There aren’t elections in the Gaza Strip so if you get a majority what difference does it make? To quote Mao again, in this case political power really does come out of a barrel of a gun.
And if you still aren’t persuaded, just consider how successful the strategy of promote business, build prosperity, and raise living standards as the road to democracy plus moderation has worked in such places as Islamist Iran, Syria, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
By the way, if you take the middle initial of the last U.S. president, “W,” and that of the current U.S. president, “H,” you get the initials for White House. Coincidence? Or perhaps the basis for a new Middle East peace plan!
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Some Semi-Sanity from Europe: EU Foreign Ministers Make Partial Sense on Gaza, Iran
Please be subscriber 16,632. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions since the New York Times doesn't pay for our research. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Remember what I told you: if you want to know what policy is going to be, watch the governments, not the media. While the results of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg were far from perfect, they also show the difference between decision-makers and opinion-makers on the Middle East.
First, the foreign ministers proposed new sanctions going beyond the ones just voted in the UN against Iran’s nuclear program to prohibit new investment and transfer of technology, equipment and services.
The British representative, William Hague, told the EU to take a “strong lead” on this issue. Sweden’s opposition was overcome. We must wait to see the details but clearly this is a step in the right direction. Incidentally, I believe the main European states were willing to do this nine months ago but were forestalled by the go-slow U.S. policy.
Second, regarding the Gaza issue, the EU foreign ministers refused to condemn Israel and adopted a mixed package of proposals. They called for a “credible, independent” investigation of the incident with the Gaza flotilla, which leaves the door open for Israel’s approach of an independent commission with two foreign observers rather than a UN-led (and inevitably wildly biased) process.
They also called for the release by Hamas of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and that the Red Cross be allowed to visit him, while recognizing Israel’s "legitimate security concerns, including the need to cease all violence and arms smuggling into Gaza."
On the other side, they wanted a narrowing of the embargo on Gaza but did not define precisely how this should be done. And Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East said sympathetically that he expected Israel to ease the blockade soon.
The EU position also offered to help in arrangements for the crossings along the lines of its 2005 arrangements, which proved to be useless in practice though they made the EU feel good about doing something.
This is a position that Israel can live with by modifying the embargo. It is generally not realized that restrictions are constantly being revised any way. For example, Israel has agreed in connection with UNRWA to let in construction equipment and concrete for specific, supervised construction projects to ensure that this materiel isn’t used for Hamas military projects.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Despite the intensive campaign of slander and some losses on the public relations’ front, in diplomatic terms the damage for Israel of the Gaza flotilla crisis has been limited and it has won on the most essential points. Acceptable compromises can basically undercut Western governmental criticism.
What will be the response of Hamas and its supporters? More ships will arrive of two varieties. The peaceful ones will be boarded, taken into port, and their cargoes (whose small size and genuinely humanitarian portions) will be delivered to Gaza. There will be no public relations’ bonus for Hamas or ending the embargo as a result.
There will, then, be more Jihadist ships, too, designed to provoke violence and create martyrs. They will be dealt with and repetition is going to expose—at least for Western policymakers—the scam that’s going on and reduce its effectiveness.
I stand by my pessimistic assessment of the longer-term implications of Western policy as accepting a terrorist, genocide-goaled, Iranian client, revolutionary Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip. For the moment, however, the outcome looks like a weakened containment policy rather than the normalization that Hamas and its supporters are seeking.
The next key question is this: Will the United States and EU countries support a UN-led lynch-mob investigation or not? They may try stalling, saying that it should await the results of Israel's investigation with international observers participating.
Finally, those who have any misunderstanding of the kind of regime they are helping to survive, might read a sermon just broadcast over Hamas's official Gaza television station:
"Whoever believes that our battle with the Jews and the Crusaders has subsided or is dormant is living in delusions....The Jews...annihilation and the destruction of their state will only be achieved through Islam, by those who bow before Allah...."
Helping Hamas is helping to plunge the Middle East, and perhaps the world, into a nightmare of bloodshed and horror.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions since the New York Times doesn't pay for our research. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Remember what I told you: if you want to know what policy is going to be, watch the governments, not the media. While the results of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg were far from perfect, they also show the difference between decision-makers and opinion-makers on the Middle East.
First, the foreign ministers proposed new sanctions going beyond the ones just voted in the UN against Iran’s nuclear program to prohibit new investment and transfer of technology, equipment and services.
The British representative, William Hague, told the EU to take a “strong lead” on this issue. Sweden’s opposition was overcome. We must wait to see the details but clearly this is a step in the right direction. Incidentally, I believe the main European states were willing to do this nine months ago but were forestalled by the go-slow U.S. policy.
Second, regarding the Gaza issue, the EU foreign ministers refused to condemn Israel and adopted a mixed package of proposals. They called for a “credible, independent” investigation of the incident with the Gaza flotilla, which leaves the door open for Israel’s approach of an independent commission with two foreign observers rather than a UN-led (and inevitably wildly biased) process.
They also called for the release by Hamas of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and that the Red Cross be allowed to visit him, while recognizing Israel’s "legitimate security concerns, including the need to cease all violence and arms smuggling into Gaza."
On the other side, they wanted a narrowing of the embargo on Gaza but did not define precisely how this should be done. And Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East said sympathetically that he expected Israel to ease the blockade soon.
The EU position also offered to help in arrangements for the crossings along the lines of its 2005 arrangements, which proved to be useless in practice though they made the EU feel good about doing something.
This is a position that Israel can live with by modifying the embargo. It is generally not realized that restrictions are constantly being revised any way. For example, Israel has agreed in connection with UNRWA to let in construction equipment and concrete for specific, supervised construction projects to ensure that this materiel isn’t used for Hamas military projects.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Despite the intensive campaign of slander and some losses on the public relations’ front, in diplomatic terms the damage for Israel of the Gaza flotilla crisis has been limited and it has won on the most essential points. Acceptable compromises can basically undercut Western governmental criticism.
What will be the response of Hamas and its supporters? More ships will arrive of two varieties. The peaceful ones will be boarded, taken into port, and their cargoes (whose small size and genuinely humanitarian portions) will be delivered to Gaza. There will be no public relations’ bonus for Hamas or ending the embargo as a result.
There will, then, be more Jihadist ships, too, designed to provoke violence and create martyrs. They will be dealt with and repetition is going to expose—at least for Western policymakers—the scam that’s going on and reduce its effectiveness.
I stand by my pessimistic assessment of the longer-term implications of Western policy as accepting a terrorist, genocide-goaled, Iranian client, revolutionary Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip. For the moment, however, the outcome looks like a weakened containment policy rather than the normalization that Hamas and its supporters are seeking.
The next key question is this: Will the United States and EU countries support a UN-led lynch-mob investigation or not? They may try stalling, saying that it should await the results of Israel's investigation with international observers participating.
Finally, those who have any misunderstanding of the kind of regime they are helping to survive, might read a sermon just broadcast over Hamas's official Gaza television station:
"Whoever believes that our battle with the Jews and the Crusaders has subsided or is dormant is living in delusions....The Jews...annihilation and the destruction of their state will only be achieved through Islam, by those who bow before Allah...."
Helping Hamas is helping to plunge the Middle East, and perhaps the world, into a nightmare of bloodshed and horror.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
What Will the Western Strategy Toward Gaza Produce? A "Normal" Revolutionary, Terrorist, Genocidal Regime There
Please be subscriber 16,614. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.
We depend on your contributions since the New York Times doesn't pay for our research. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A reader asks: What is the West's strategy regarding the Gaza Strip. Good question.
The strategy is to relieve the alleged "humanitarian" issue as soon as possible and quiet everything down. Without thinking through the consequences, the idea is to return the Gaza Strip to as normal a situation as possible in economic and social terms. There is broad recognition of Israel's right to keep out arms and military equipment but doubts about extending the sanctions much beyond that.
To put it bluntly, Western countries are not becoming consciously favorable toward Hamas. They will continue to isolate it politically and deny it arms. The problem is that they do not understand how their policy will: strengthen it, ensure decades of totalitarian rule for Gaza and suffering of the people there under a repressive dictatorship; make future wars unavoidable; make an Israel-Palestinian peace impossible; and subvert Egypt, too.
Essentially, this is not an issue about Israel but one about Hamas, the revolutionary Islamist movement, and the Iranian regime's ambition to dominate the Middle East.
The arguments here are so obvious that the only way to prevent people understanding them is to keep them largely out of the mainstream media.
If you give money to Gaza, even to non-Hamas recipients, it will benefit the regime. If you let in non-weapons' equipment in many categories, the regime will take a large portion. If you let in luxury goods, the regime will use it to buy support.
There is no strategic dimension in Western thinking, no sense of what the West wants to happen in the Gaza Strip. Does it want Hamas to survive? Does it understand the implications of that?
There is no recognition of the following points:
--The best thing would be to allow Israel to overthrow the Hamas regime, and there was an opportunity to do so in January 2009. That government did not come to power by elections but by a bloody coup, and it holds power "illegally" since it has never recognized the Oslo agreement made by Israel and the PLO.
--Any push for a merger between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will destroy any chance for peace since it would push the Palestinians in a violent and radical direction.
--There will be a terrorist, Islamist, client of Iran on the Mediterranean spreading revolution to other countries, and not just Israel.
I could go on with other points. But virtually none of these ideas or arguments are in the current international debate. That fact renders statements, articles, and government policies either useless or harmful for Western interests.
What will happen without any question if Hamas stays in power?
--More attacks on Israel leading eventually to war.
--The effort to indoctrinate an entire generation of youth to be terrorists carrying on an endless war.
--Gaza becoming an Iranian base.
--The competitive militancy of Hamas threatening to overthrow the Palestinian Authority, pulling it in a more militant direction, and possibly some day creating a Fatah-Hamas merger that would launch a new war. At minimum, it would make Israel-Palestinian peace impossible since you cannot make peace with half your opponent. Even the PA is getting scared at the apparent success of Hamas's public relations' offensive, which seems to be producing Arab League recognition of the "legitimacy" of the Hamas dictatorship in Gaza.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
We depend on your contributions since the New York Times doesn't pay for our research. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
A reader asks: What is the West's strategy regarding the Gaza Strip. Good question.
The strategy is to relieve the alleged "humanitarian" issue as soon as possible and quiet everything down. Without thinking through the consequences, the idea is to return the Gaza Strip to as normal a situation as possible in economic and social terms. There is broad recognition of Israel's right to keep out arms and military equipment but doubts about extending the sanctions much beyond that.
To put it bluntly, Western countries are not becoming consciously favorable toward Hamas. They will continue to isolate it politically and deny it arms. The problem is that they do not understand how their policy will: strengthen it, ensure decades of totalitarian rule for Gaza and suffering of the people there under a repressive dictatorship; make future wars unavoidable; make an Israel-Palestinian peace impossible; and subvert Egypt, too.
Essentially, this is not an issue about Israel but one about Hamas, the revolutionary Islamist movement, and the Iranian regime's ambition to dominate the Middle East.
The arguments here are so obvious that the only way to prevent people understanding them is to keep them largely out of the mainstream media.
If you give money to Gaza, even to non-Hamas recipients, it will benefit the regime. If you let in non-weapons' equipment in many categories, the regime will take a large portion. If you let in luxury goods, the regime will use it to buy support.
There is no strategic dimension in Western thinking, no sense of what the West wants to happen in the Gaza Strip. Does it want Hamas to survive? Does it understand the implications of that?
There is no recognition of the following points:
--The best thing would be to allow Israel to overthrow the Hamas regime, and there was an opportunity to do so in January 2009. That government did not come to power by elections but by a bloody coup, and it holds power "illegally" since it has never recognized the Oslo agreement made by Israel and the PLO.
--Any push for a merger between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will destroy any chance for peace since it would push the Palestinians in a violent and radical direction.
--There will be a terrorist, Islamist, client of Iran on the Mediterranean spreading revolution to other countries, and not just Israel.
I could go on with other points. But virtually none of these ideas or arguments are in the current international debate. That fact renders statements, articles, and government policies either useless or harmful for Western interests.
What will happen without any question if Hamas stays in power?
--More attacks on Israel leading eventually to war.
--The effort to indoctrinate an entire generation of youth to be terrorists carrying on an endless war.
--Gaza becoming an Iranian base.
--The competitive militancy of Hamas threatening to overthrow the Palestinian Authority, pulling it in a more militant direction, and possibly some day creating a Fatah-Hamas merger that would launch a new war. At minimum, it would make Israel-Palestinian peace impossible since you cannot make peace with half your opponent. Even the PA is getting scared at the apparent success of Hamas's public relations' offensive, which seems to be producing Arab League recognition of the "legitimacy" of the Hamas dictatorship in Gaza.
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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. 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)
