Friday, April 13, 2012

The Three Myths that Distort Every Discussion of Israel and the Middle East

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” –William Shakespeare, “Macbeth”

By Barry Rubin

Whatever side you are, or aren’t, on and whether you never think about these issues or are an impassioned activist, there are three fundamental issues about Israel, its enemies, and the Middle East that tie the narrative into knots.

Each of these wrong ideas, of course, has a basis in fact. The following points might appear counter-intuitive. But I will demonstrate their accuracy. And you can’t understand events without grasping them.



-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center 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.

Please be subscriber 29,004. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

1.      1,  Israel’s existence is jeopardized.

There is no question that Israel’s existence is challenged or threatened by various forces, But it is essential to understand that those who want to destroy israel aren't and can't come close to succeeding.  Every day, after 65 years of failure they are further from that goal. Israel becomes stronger on all levels. The economic and strategic gaps are getting wider, not narrower, for reasons much related to points two and three, below.

What is important is the country’s internal social and strategic strength, not what’s written about it in the Western media or said on Western campuses, for example.. Arab armies have repeatedly been defeated; terrorists repeatedly blocked; Israel has grown stronger and time is, indeed, on its side.

This should not lead to complacency—a mistake most clearly seen in the 1973 war and to some extent in the 2006 one--but to calm confidence.  This does exist in Israel but not so much in sectors o the Diaspora Jewish communities, which themselves face higher threats to their existence either physically or due to assimilation, the attraction of leftist political ideology, and loss of direction.

Despite the sound and fury, much of the criticism and threats remain toothless. For instance, while the UN, European countries, and the European Union have wasted a lot of their time spouting nonsense about Israel it has amounted to little in material terms. The same is true of others.

Another key concept is that the extent of anti-Israel obsession in the public sphere is misleading. Dozens of countries, causes, and groups are vilified all the time, yet of them all none compares to Israel and its supporters in their ability to respond. It is the strength of the resistance that often increases the apparent volume of controversy.

Finally, the use of the Israel issue to fuel hysteria by dictatorships, radical Arab nationalists, and Islamists actually undermines the Arabic-speaking world, making it weaker and thus, ironically, less able to combat Israel.  

Iran's drive for deliverable nuclear weapons--which it doesn't yet have--is worthy of discussion but this threat is quite manageable by Israel, both through offensive and defensive measures as well as given the fact that Iran's eagerness to commit suicide by nukiing Israel has been greatly exaggerated.  

2.     2.  The concerted international campaign by various groups in the West against Israel damages it and helps the Palestinians.

Again, this should be obviously true--that the tireless anti-Israel propaganda campaign materially damages Israel--but the truth is quite the opposite.  To date, despite all the noise, Israeli interests—including businesses—have suffered little damage. On the contrary, the attacks encourage support, including increased buying of Israeli products and energetic loyalty by Israel’s supporters abroad.

But all of these endless demonstrations, teach-ins, books, articles, documentaries, boycott, disinvestment, and sanction labors do absolutely zero to help the Palestinians. On one level, they do nothing politically to advance their cause in a real way. On another level, they contribute nothing to their welfare.

Moreover, by convincing the Palestinian leadership that they can eliminate Israel completely, that Western support is swinging toward them, and that they don’t need to change their own policies or strategies, all of this behavior leads them charging down a dead-end street at the end of which it collides with a stone wall.

By encouraging the Palestinians and Arabs to fight in order to destroy Israel, when they cannot win, their well-wishes cause them to lose the two-state solution, which is indeed available to them, and to throw away years of time, millions of dollars, and thousands of lives. 

Imagine—as the activists in these movements have never done!—that all of this energy went into buying Palestinian products, donating to improve Palestinian schools and hospitals, resettling refugees and providing them with productive jobs and housing. That would be truly pro-Palestinian. And even if the intention was to use this progress as a base for destroying Israel some day it would be more effective than what they are doing now.


And so all of this energy is wasted effort and this hatred produces no result.

Of course, since most of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been engaged in stealing aid money and funneling it into their private bank accounts, admittedly these activists don’t have a very good role model to follow. And since the leadership’s goal is to keep its people poor and living in refugee camps in order to use them as revolutionary fodder and an object of sympathy these activists don’t have much incentive to do real good.  

3.      3.  Israel is the main cause of instability in the Middle East.

On one level, of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been a basis for instability. Yet the proportion of the oveall instability inherent in the Middle East caused by Israel is in fact relatively small. People ignorant of all the other issues in the region have only heard of that one controversy. Beyond that, though, consider what would be different if Israel didn’t exist.

Implicitly, this is thought by most Arabs and Muslims to be the basis for a united utopian society stretching from Morocco through Afghanistan. But that’s precisely the point. What kind of society would that be? Who—what leader, country, and ideology, would lead it? Who gets to be the caliph?

In other words, if Israel didn’t exist the level of internal conflict and bloodshed would be even higher. There would be nothing—including the territorial separation that Israel provides—to stop these leaders, movements, countries, and ideologies from being at each other’s throats. Tremendous wars between countries would spill oceans of blood. Decades’-long Sunni-Shia conflicts would enflame the lands. Endless internal strife would bring civil wars that would dwarf what we’ve seen in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

Even with Israel, instability of this kind is bad enough, though it is far less noticed than it would be otherwise.  The same applies, by the way, to the Arab-Israeli conflict whose end—which will not come anytime soon—would have the same effect, unleashing more internal confllcts and battles among states.

One final point: because much of the thought and political action on the Middle East is in the wrong direction, running against the realities, the main effect is to confuse those watching from outside the region and engaging in these activities. Yet, disregarding all of this noise, what actually exists marches forward. Or to use an Arab proverb, the dogs bark; the caravan moves on.

PS: On April 15, approximately 600 activists paid about $700 each for tickets to fly to Israel to demonstrate against that country's existence. In almost all cases, they were prevented from boarding the aircraft. Airlines are legally responsible for not allowing passengers to board international flights who will be refused entry at the point of arrival. The tickets were not refunded. That means that about a half million dollars were thrown away in "supporting" the Palestinians. Imagine if that same amount had been provided for some productive purpose like improving medical care. So the activists got a thrill and did nothing but waste time and money for absolutely no return but an ego trip.    


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 book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.


A different version of this article is published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the copyright and ask you to read and link to my version here.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

What’s in a Shirt? Why Obama’s Foreign Policy Doesn’t Smell So Sweet

“For he might have been a Russian,
A French or Turk or Prussian
Or perhaps Italian!
But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
He remains an Englishman!”
--Gilbert and Sullivan, “H.M.S. Pinafore”

By Barry Rubin

President Barack Obama will wear a Cuban-style "guayabera" shirt made for him by a Colombian designer at an upcoming Americas summit in Cartagena, Colombia April 14-15.  –News Item

This guy just doesn’t seem to get it. He’s supposed to be America’s leader, not an ersatz South American, friend of the Franks, roommate of the Russians, soul-mate of the Muslims, etc.

But I do think all of this behavior reveals something of the inner Obama.

His basic approach toward foreigners is to win them over by imitating them, by showing that he loves and cares and understands them. No longer is America to stand alone, for itself, in its own interests. No, the purpose of NASA is to make Muslims feel good about themselves and, of course, about America being nice to them.

This whole approach has little to do with two centuries of generally successful U.S. foreign policy or, indeed, with the history of great power statecraft at all.


-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center 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.

Please be subscriber 29,005. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

Somehow this attitude originated in Obama’s childhood when he no doubt felt somehow alien to Indonesia and uncomfortable with his own identity  but trying to fit in by proving that he was just one of them, not some weird alien admixture.

I can almost see him on the playground trying to persuade Muslim students that he really loved Islam. And the fact that he did not, at least later, feel himself to be a Muslim made the problem worse.

We can definitely see him--as he discusses in his autobiographies--as trying to persuade African-Americans that he's one of them. Well, not even just one of them but one of the militants who thought more like Malcolm X  or the Reverend Wright than like Martin Luther King.

Toward America, he adopted the pose of a rebel, an outsider, a transforming figure. And toward the rest of the world--except for Israel and Britain, which are considered too close to America for his comfort--he adopts the posture of a supplicant.  I don't think I'm better than you. I'm ready to imitate you, to put your interests first. Please like me.

On the global level, Obama has a deep-seated need to prove he isn't the leader. This is not a good characteristic for the president of the United States.

And what about his failure to buy American for his shirts ? There goes another clothes-designing job. Why should America be independent in its oil supply when he can send money to Brazil or Mexico to help them? Don't they have lower living standards? Don't they need the money? What are we, greedy?

The way he should be winning over South Americans and others is not by trying to act like them or by turning American into a European country. Instead, he’s supposed to be saying:

Hi! I’m president of the United States of America, a very successful country due to its political and economic system. Perhaps you should try being more like us!

There’s something very profound in this shirt story, mark my words. Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that Obama’s foreign policy is definitely full of shirt.


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 book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

The Iraqi Model: As Good As It Gets

By Barry Rubin

Iraq is in a mess. Violence continues. Factionalism leads to endless bickering. Corruption is at high levels. Christians live in fear or flee altogether. Islamism is constantly creeping forward. Yet I would suggest that with all these shortcomings the “Iraqi model” is the best that can be expected for the Middle East.

What’s the worst-case scenario? Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan, or the permanent civil war situation in Syria, Yemen, and probably Libya.

It isn’t that democracy is theoretically impossible or incompatible in principle with Islam or Arab society. The problem is that it just isn’t going to happen at this particular point in history. What you or I or small groups of moderate democratic Arabs, or naïve Western journalists want isn’t relevant here.


-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center 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.

Please be subscriber 28,991. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------


The reporters can pal around with Muslim Brotherhood members every day of the week and talk about how moderate they are but that won’t make them moderate.  Tens of thousands of well-financed, fanatical, hard-working, and tactically creative cadre are laboring long hours throughout the region to bring revolutionary Islamist dictators to power in each country.

They are opposed by dozens of moderates who are concentrated in the capital cities, have hardly any money, usually don’t know how to relate to the masses, have no strategic sense, are more badly divided than the Islamists and confuse writing an op-ed piece or holding a demonstration with organizing a mass movement to seize state power.

Wishful thinking has no place in political analysis or statecraft or journalism. The fact that the moderates are so much “like us” is not an advantage for them—except in getting favorable media coverage--but a fatal disadvantage in their own societies.

Personally, I would prefer that the moderates win, but then I grew up watching the Washington Senators baseball team finish in last place in the American League every year.

The model usually put forward, including by the Obama Administration, is the Turkish regime. It is rare in history for a democratic state to promote a foreign government that is so antithetical to its own interests in almost every way. There are some positions in common but far more that are different. Two put it as briefly as possible, there are two problems.

The first problem is that the Turkish regime is boosting radical Islamist movements and governments that are America’s biggest enemy. These include Iran, the Gaza Strip (Hamas), and the current government in Lebanon (Hizballah). The Turkish regime has tried to back the Muslim Brotherhood but has been rebuffed, since the Brotherhood has no interest in following non-Arab leadership. And in Syria, the Turkish regime has been backing the Islamists in the opposition, intending to produce an anti-American regime in Damascus.

The Turkish regime also loathes Israel and supports radical Islamist forces against it. Only regarding Iraq do U.S. and Turkish interests basically coincide.

The second problem is that the Turkish regime has systematically reduced democracy at home. Hundreds of moderates have been arrested on ridiculous charges. The armed forces, formerly the guardian of secularism and the basic democratic system, have been broken. The media is intimidated. Radical Islamists have been infiltrated into all parts of the government. This well-coordinated creeping tendency toward dictatorship has barely been reported in the West.

What is the Turkish model in terms of the Arabic-speaking world? It is a formula for radical Islamist groups to seize state power and fundamentally transform their societies while appearing to be moderate. It is a step by step process, the equivalent of the Russian revolutionary movement graduating from anarchism to Bolshevism precisely a century earlier.

The most surprising thing is not that the West has been taken in by this trick but that it has happened so thoroughly.

At a time when even Lebanon is governed by a combination of Islamists and radical clients of Tehran and Damascus, Tunisia has a mostly Islamist government, and when the secular Turkish republic is being transformed by Islamists there is not much of an alternative.

In Morocco and Jordan, as usual, the kings have brilliantly maneuvered to provide the appearance of democratic pluralism and even Islamist participation while they continue to hold the real power.  In Algeria, as usual, the army is running things. In Saudi Arabia and the small sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman), as usual, traditionalist regimes rule but they are now now intimidated by radical Islamist threats as they were once so cowed by radical Arab nationalist threats.

And at a moment when President Barack Obama has transformed America from being leader of the Free World to reflecting the effete, unrealistic elite from the Brie World, there’s not much hope from that quarter.

So that brings us to Iraq. As I’ve outlined above, the situation there is far from ideal. Yet there are some significant advantages. Internally, there are elections that mean something, a real element of pluralism, space for freedom of speech, and some working decentralization.

Of the greatest importance is the fact that Islamist elements have been defeated (in the Sunni case) or held at bay (in the Shia case). Things can certainly get worse but some stability seems to have been achieved at this time.

Another key factor is that Iraq is acting more “normally” as a state by minding its own business. It is not subverting neighbors or trying to take over the Middle East. Iraq also has decent relations with the West.  This is a country that is trying to deal with its own problems. And if there is factionalism and corruption, at least it appears to be clear that no force can monopolize power and establish a repressive dictatorship.

Call it chaotic pluralism as an alternative to Islamist dictatorship. And, yes, that appears to be the best that can be expected in those countries not still dominated by traditionalist monarchies.  It is certainly preferable to the “Turkish model.” Yet I don’t expect many people in the West to appreciate that point.

Is my assessment too pessimistic? Well, you are free to be optimistic. You can imagine an Israel-Palestinian peace based on a comprehensive treaty ending the conflict and establishing a two-state solution. You can fantasize about moderate Muslim Brotherhood leaders pragmatically getting down to solving Egypt's problems by creating jobs, building housing, and establishing new industries. You can pretend that various forces will be grateful to America and President Obama for demolishing several dictatorships.

But none of this is going to happen. It is vital to understand why and to comprehend what must be done in the face of this situation.

By pretending to soar to the heights of democracy, the Islamists are on the road to autocracy, and an anti-Western, regionally destabilizing autocracy at that.  By being so gullible, the West is assisting a repressive anti-Western force to dominate the region and to set it back 60 years (to the origin of radical Arab nationalist hegemony) if not 600 years.

A different version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. Please read and link to the above version.

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 book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Needed: A Marxist-Style Analysis to Understand and Combat the Extreme Left's Hegemony

By Barry Rubin

Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened.  To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals a great deal. The movement must be understood on its own terms and on how it differs from its predecessors.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center 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.

Please be subscriber 28,991. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and those that must be defeated.

The Marxist Analysis of the Social Battle
Marx and his followers identified the industrial working class as that revolutionary force. Here’s how the idea appears in the 1848 "Communist Manifesto":

“Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

Marxists posited that the workers' condition would worsen and that no reform could improve their situation, forcing them to become revolutionaries. Their main ally would be the lower middle class, wiped out by big business and new technology :

“The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat....“

In contrast, who are the revolution's enemies? Capitalists, clergy, and those elements that benefit from capitalism. And along with them:

“The `dangerous class,’ [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.”

Note that in many ways the post-Marxist left reverses this analysis. The lumpenproletariat becomes its ally along with those--many of them prosperous--who benefit from the government's management of capitalism. In contrast, Marx's description of the revolutionary forces sounds more like a description of  Tea Party members.

Why Marxism Failed....


The Post-Marxist Left’s New Analysis....



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 book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Moderate U.S. Establishment Position? That the Muslim Brotherhood Might Be Moderate

[Also hear me interviewed on Middle East developments here at the 14 minute mark.]

By Barry Rubin

The Washington Post continues to talk relatively sensibly about Middle East developments. And yet its latest editorial also shows the type of contortions necessary to avoid facing the awful truth of the situation in the region.

The editorial concludes:

“Election results notwithstanding, it seems clear that the vast majority of Egyptians as well as Tunisians seek economic progress and respect for human rights, and not a theocracy. Secular citizens and minorities, who make up a large part of the population, will not accept discrimination. Islamic movements will succeed in government, and retain their following, only if they recognize those realities.”

Really? Let’s consider this text as it reveals precisely how the Obama Administration and the conventional wisdom in the U.S. policy establishment thinks about these issues:

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center 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.

Please be subscriber 28,915. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------


“Election results notwithstanding, it seems clear that the vast majority of Egyptians as well as Tunisians seek economic progress and respect for human rights, and not a theocracy.”

Then why did they vote so much for radical Islamist parties? I know that one can consult some polls to say that the people’s main concern is economic betterment but that also requires ignoring other polls where enthusiastic support for Sharia is shown.

Moreover, the case can be made that they think Islamists will do a better job of managing the economy for various reasons, including the (probably true) assumption that they are less corrupt, belief that they will follow populist policies that will more directly benefit the masses, impose order through repression (less crime when you cut off limbs), and expectation that they will bring a higher degree of equality and social justice.

As for “respect for human rights” does this mean that they advocate equality for women and Christians; think people should have the freedom of speech to criticize Islam or even to offer interpretations of Islam contrary to those of the most powerful (and radical) clerics? This is a fantasy, based on the belief that Middle Eastern Muslims—once one gets beyond clothes, food, and customs—think just like Americans.

What would we have been told in 1952, that most Arabs didn’t support radical Arab nationalism but really wanted democracy and human rights instead?


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 book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.