Please be subscriber 16,740. 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
According to the press pool reporter for the meeting between King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and President Barack H. Obama of the United States, who wrote it just after stepping out of the meeting room, the king:
"Began his remarks saying he wanted to tell Obama what was spoken of him around the world: `That you are an honorable and good man.'"
Is it just me or is there a gigantic unspoken, "But..." at the end of that sentence? It is true that Obama clearly relished this compliment. After all, popularity is everything to him. Presumably, it is the kind of thing his supporters think proves he has been successful.
Yet imagine two Middle East leaders or other rulers meeting: "Hey, ___, you're a really honorable and good man!" Does that indicate the compliment-giver respects or fears or will do what the subject of that phrase wants him to do? No, quite the opposite.
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad said that it was better to be feared than loved. Usama bin Ladin said people prefer the strong horse in a race. He didn't say anything about the honorable and good horse. I can't think of anyone in Arab politics in the last 80 years who could be described as "honorable and good." Maybe, King Hussein of Jordan, but he had to appear nice since he ruled the weakest country in the region. And even he had an iron fist, as he demonstrated in crushing the PLO in September 1970.
And so, knowing something of how King Abdallah thinks, I can't help but hear some possible implied endings in his statement to the president:
You are an honorable and good man, but so weak that even the camels laugh at you.
You are an honorable and good man, and you know what they say, "Honorable and good men finish last."
You are an honorable and good man. Unfortunately, your enemies aren't!
You are an honorable and good man. But I want someone who is tough, mean, and cleverly devious to protect me.
You are an honorable and good man. So give me all your money now. You see, my father was the president of the Bank of Nigeria who just died after stealing all the bank's money. So if I have all your savings I can sneak his money out of the country and give you a 1000 percent profit! Here's the PO Box where you should send the money....
You are an honorable and good man, so give me Israel bound hand and foot to prove it. [Which reminds me of what a very smart and experienced Middle East hand told me he heard from a Saudi official not long ago. The Saudi said: From our standpoint, America and Israel are like members of the same family. So if you treat them like you're doing how can we expect you to treat us?]
Anyway, "Complete King Abdallah's Sentence" would make a good parlor game with many possible responses. (Send me yours and if it fits I'll add it in here.)
The king's remark also reminds of Mark Antony's speech in William Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar," which I'll bet the king hasn't read. While repeatedly calling Brutus an "honorable man" to his face, Antony systematically destroys him by letting the watching crowd hear the sneer in his voice. By the time Antony's speech is finished, the mob is chasing Brutus out of town and burning down his house. So how credible is the king whose government claims that none of its citizens were involved in the September 11 attacks?
Abdullah also said that the citizens of America are considered friends of the Muslim and Arab worlds alike, as well as friends to humanity. Idle curiosity: Did the king say this to George W. Bush also?
Funny, you wouldn't know that as the way people thought from the Saudi state-controlled media, mosque sermons, and just about everything else said within the kingdom or in most other Arab and Muslim-majority countries. Public opinion polls also show that this is the exact opposite to be true. Neither Obama nor the United States is held in high regard.
What is especially funny about this for me is that not long before reading this I heard from a very authoritative source a quite detailed first-hand account of a meeting between the leader of a European and of a Latin American country--both U.S. allies--in which they spent their time ridiculing Obama and confessing their common lack of faith in him. Such conversations are going on all over the world.
Only in the United States (or should I say, certain parts of the United States) are people still unaware of this reality.
Indeed, after reading this article, an Arabic-speaking friend wrote: "It's one of the most serious articles you've written. It basically means he's been disrespected to his face by one of his closest allies, and they regard him as a liability. While at the same time Iran is acquiring nukes. The implications of this situation couldn't be more serious."
I responded: "Do you realize that almost nobody in the United States will understand this? They will just think their president has received a nice compliment."
Readers have contributed these endings to the king's "compliment":
"You are an honorable and good man"...
"... and if you think I mean that as a compliment, we're in worse trouble than I thought."
"... but I will pay you such compliments only if you continue to undermine Israel, betray your Central European and other allies, and pursue policies that will cause the price of oil to skyrocket. We're prepared to make a deal with Iran if we can't depend on you.
"...but so easily gulled, tricked and deceived by the knaves of the world...
....but honor and goodness do not a strong Middle Eastern leader make.
....but that, and .25 cents, won’t buy me a cup of Arabic coffee.
....but I doubt you can be trusted in a fight.
....but, so what?
....so clearly you’ll have no problem with me taking Michelle to a movie….
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 29, 2010
Why So Much of the Western Elite Hates (or Doesn’t Like) Israel (And Their Own Societies, Too)
Please be subscriber 16,739. 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
Aside from all the traditional reasons—antisemitism, oil money, the Arab world's strategic weight, guilt over colonialist pasts, fear of Islamist violence, etc—there are some important new ideological ones making large elements of the Western cultural and intellectual elite dislike (or hate) Israel.
If you understand these factors, it also explains a lot more generally about the (temporarily?) hegemonic ideology that has taken over much of Western academia, media, and politics.
1. Religion
As a Jewish state, and a country where religion plays an important role, Israel is anathema to Western leftists and intellectuals who are against religion, or at least against Judeo-Christian religions. Incidentally, though, Israel is not a theologically based or defined states. In fact, Jews are a people who happen to have a distinctive religion, something rather common in history. The idea that Jews are only a religious group is a very recent idea in world history.
But the allergy to religion in public life is a powerful force in Western elites today. Why doesn’t this apply to Islam? There are a number of reasons but one rarely mentioned is that Islam isn’t “their” religion, meaning that they have never personally or collectively rebelled against it, nor has it shaped elements in their own society that these people hate. Islam may be a repressive religion in Saudi Arabia, but it isn't responsible for Jerry Falwell or the "Christian right." Hence, to a member of the Western elite, it isn't "their" problem.
While this is a simplification, to get across the idea I will use the following phrase: Islam for them is in the class of a “quaint, alien custom” rather than something they viscerally hate or believe their societies have dispensed with for the better. This is especially true, of course, for the anti-religious Jews among them.
For those from that general approach, of course, the alternative is to accept secular Zionism and support for non-religious forces in Israel, which are in the large majority of course.
2. Nationalism
Israel represents a nationalist movement and is thus anathema to Western leftists and intellectuals who are against nationalism. As with religion, of course, it is usually only the nationalism of their own people or patriotism toward their country they oppose. As with religion, they think this is a remnant of the “dark ages” of human division and mutual hatred which should be dispensed with as soon and completely as possible. Just as religion is identified with obscurantism and superstition, nationalism is identified with fascism and national chauvinism.
And, again, for the Jews among them who are assimilationist or believe the role of Jews is to be the most steadfast fighters for revolutionary change, Israel is especially repugnant.
Their idea is to make assimilation (and the disappearance of the Jews as a people) count by helping to create a glorious utopian society, the same kind of idea that mobilized Jews to be Communists in earlier generations. [If you are interested, read my book, Assimilation and its Discontents.] Jewish Communists fought, sacrificed, and died for decades only to find that the USSR's Communism became the most powerful antisemitic ideology during the Soviet Union's last four and a half decades.
For those from that general framework, a variant of acceptable Zionism historically has been support for left-of-center forces in Israel, not necessarily even far-left ones.
3. Nation-state/peoplehood
The idea that a country should consist of a distinct people, a central idea during the last two centuries and still dominant in most of the world, has become a sin in the thinking of the hegemonic view in the West, indeed the sin of “racism.”
It is important to note that this is true on two different levels:
First, in opposition to the idea that a specific ethnic group be virtually coexistent with the nation-state (the French in France; the Italians in Italy)
But also, second, that the population of a given country should have a coherent culture, identity, and worldview. After all, various countries have absorbed large numbers of immigrants but integrated them into a national community based on common beliefs. Multiculturalism has abandoned this approach.
In other words, it is not enough according to this ideology to have a multi-racial, multi-religious group of people who are "English" or ""French" for example, but a multi-racial, multi-religious group that belongs to multiple communities without an overarching identity and a basic common worldview. (Now that's a formula for the failure and collapse of a society into violence, poverty, and collapse if I've ever heard one.)
Actually, Israel is an example of a country that has absorbed large numbers of immigrants. In proportionate terms there is no nation state in the world that has done this to a greater extent. But Israel is a Jewish state, a state built around a people with a common identity, and this framework, which has been the norm for several centuries in the West, has suddenly been branded illegitimate. And so Israel is hated for this reason by those who would destroy their own people and nation-state. They don't want a successful example around to discourage suicidal tendencies in their countries.
Incidentally, if a Palestinian state ever comes into being it will be governed according to the constitution already written for it by the Palestinian Authority: An Arab state whose official religion is Islam and which will grant or withhold citizenship depending on whether one is a member of the Palestinian Arab people. And the world is now also accepting in practice a Hamas-ruled Palestinian Islamist state which even further restricts the definition of the nation. How ironic!
4. Israel Fights Revolutionaries
True, the Western Left is…leftist. It supposedly stands for widespread democracy, equality for women and homosexuals, secularism, and various other things. The revolutionary Islamists are rightists and have the opposite position on all of these issues.
But that’s not important. The self-identified revolutionaries of the West, even though they use no violence, see the revolutionaries of the Middle East as kith and kin. The latter are “fighting the man,” to use American slang. They want to overturn the system; they hate the West’s values and policies. So the parlor radicals of the West embrace them. After all, Che Guevara is dead and there are no Marxist revolutionary movements doing much.
So in revolutionary solidarity, elements of the Western elites embrace those who would love to torture or shoot them as romantic figures. For them, precisely because Israel is pro-Western, it is on the side of the “reactionaries.”
5. Israel Fights to Defend Itself
If you are under attack because people want to wipe you off the map and deliberately attack your civilians as their main strategy (it’s called terrorism), and you defend yourself, there is going to be violence. If there is violence and you are the least bit successful, there will be casualties on the other side. And inevitably in modern war—no matter how hard you try to avoid it—some of those casualties are going to be civilians.
There are many in Western elites who are against war and violence, at least unless it is waged “perfectly” with no casualties, or no military casualties, on the other side.
“Worse” yet, you might win the war. If the other side refuses to give up and make some kind of equitable peace, the conflict will go on. If you capture their territory and they refuse to make peace, you have to occupy it. All these things are impermissible according the (temporarily?) dominant ideology in much of the West.
Thus, Israel’s “sin” is to defend itself and to win. There are, however, rational people in the West who think this is a good thing. The cleverness of the strategy of Israel’s enemies is to use their own people as human shields, to promote their suffering to gain sympathy abroad and mobilize militancy at home. This fools many people in the West, though there are others who see through this ploy.
6. Israel is involved in Conflict
There are those in the West who think that conflict is not only a bad thing but a wholly unnecessary thing. There’s a Yiddish proverb that goes: Only a dead man has no problems. The extreme form of this as applied to contemporary views is if there’s a conflict caused by Israel’s existence, end Israel’s existence and there’s no more problem.
In addition, however, there is a more moderate version: Since conflict is unnatural, the conflict can and should be quickly ended. By demanding that the conflict only be ended on terms that ensure its security and end the conflict, Israel is being obstructive.
So for much of the anti-Israel left, the conflict can be ended real fast and would be only if Israel gave in on every point. Thus, there would be no violence or anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and no terrorism in the world.
This leads into…
7. Causes of Radicalism
To paraphrase Paul Berman, the new ideology refuses to face the fact that there are deep conflicts in the world and that there are anti-freedom forces seeking to take power and oppress others or even wipe them out. Consequently, there are two ways to deal with this: ignore the threat or insist that it can be wished away. (This one is also prevalent on the Israeli far left.)
Ignore the threat: There are no radicals, just people seeking to be free and materially well-off. So the threat to Israel would disappear if only Israel changed its policy or made huge concessions.
Wish away the threat: Be nice to the radicals, apologize to them, engage them, give them what they want, and they will become moderate.
Israel is thus in the way to solving all these big problems. Consequently, it is at fault for their continuation. Possibly Israelis are stupid and don’t understand that their real interest is to give in and give away. Of course, it is the “great geniuses” who understand nothing and would be in the crocodile’s belly before you can say, “Tom Freedman is an appalling sycophant.”
8. If you’re “non-white,” you’re automatically right; if you’re the underdog we’ll roll your log.
[This was a tough rhyme. Log-rolling is an old American political slang word, meaning that I will help you get what you want.]
Reacting against centuries of discrimination and racism, the current idea is not to banish racialism—as Martin Luther King advocated, to create a color-blind society—but merely to reverse it. Israel is seen as stronger, whiter, and First World. [In reality, the skin tone test wouldn’t work between Israel and some of its enemies.]
If you are a Western elite left-wing hegemonic type, you feel guilty for being rich. But that’s ok. You can hold onto everything you have (even a gas-guzzling car] and redeem yourself by having Israel pay the bill for you.
Being the underdog, however, does not make someone automatically virtuous, especially if your problem is largely your own fault. African-Americans faced slavery and discrimination and thus are legitimate underdogs; Israel’s enemies have repressive dictatorships, waged war and terrorism, and refused compromises that would have solved their problems (with Israel, at least). That’s why they are worse off. It is political vice, not virtue that has landed them there.
So if Israel has "made the desert bloom," produced so many great inventions and innovations that benefit humanity, won the wars and survived, that is all the more reason for those who hate Israel to hate Israel. As Bob Dylan writes, they say, "There's no success like failure." But, in fact, "Failure's no success at all." Or as I wrote years ago about Yasir Arafat, the trouble with having your strategy based on being an underdog is that you have to keep losing.
Another element here is the view that, to paraphrase an intellectual famous for being...an intellectual, Susan Sontag, Western civilization is the cancer of the world. Israel is thus part of that cancer which must be cut out. Or to paraphrase a famous slogan of the last group that seriously tried to wipe out the Jews, "Today Israel, Tomorrow the Western World!" Again, Israel's virtues--reasonably regulated capitalism, democracy, modernism, freedom, success--are precisely the reasons for it to be hated.
The success of America is poison to this portions of the elite because they don't want to believe that these techniques lead to success. The same applies to Europe. And they refuse to realize that their proposed policies will wreck their own countries. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, eat it, and then expect to still get golden eggs every day.
And so in many ways, Israel is merely a stand-in for everything they hate closer to home. This is an important secret that must be kept from its own people because it will lose the anti-Israel mob support. (Reminds me of the Canadian anti-Israel group which talked too much, going from condemning Israel as a settler-colonial state that should be abolished to saying the same thing about Canada. Oops!)
This is quite a long list. I should hasten to add that brevity forces simplification and that not all the above characteristics can be found in one person or political group. To do a proper job of explaining this, especially by offering the dozens of examples going through my mind as I write this, would require a book. Hopefully, though, this effort is useful for you.
Finally, there is an important other side to this analysis. Those in the West who don’t agree with the above list of items tend to be supportive of Israel. This doesn’t just mean conservatives but real liberals (in the American sense of that word). And as the extreme left wears out its welcome mainly due to other issues—a process that is happening pretty fast and steadily—the pendulum is swinging back. In fact, if one examines public opinion polls and looks beyond the elite mass media this trend is already visible.
Come to think of it, that's a really good reason for the anti-Israel group to hate Israel: It is living proof that they are wrong.
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
Aside from all the traditional reasons—antisemitism, oil money, the Arab world's strategic weight, guilt over colonialist pasts, fear of Islamist violence, etc—there are some important new ideological ones making large elements of the Western cultural and intellectual elite dislike (or hate) Israel.
If you understand these factors, it also explains a lot more generally about the (temporarily?) hegemonic ideology that has taken over much of Western academia, media, and politics.
1. Religion
As a Jewish state, and a country where religion plays an important role, Israel is anathema to Western leftists and intellectuals who are against religion, or at least against Judeo-Christian religions. Incidentally, though, Israel is not a theologically based or defined states. In fact, Jews are a people who happen to have a distinctive religion, something rather common in history. The idea that Jews are only a religious group is a very recent idea in world history.
But the allergy to religion in public life is a powerful force in Western elites today. Why doesn’t this apply to Islam? There are a number of reasons but one rarely mentioned is that Islam isn’t “their” religion, meaning that they have never personally or collectively rebelled against it, nor has it shaped elements in their own society that these people hate. Islam may be a repressive religion in Saudi Arabia, but it isn't responsible for Jerry Falwell or the "Christian right." Hence, to a member of the Western elite, it isn't "their" problem.
While this is a simplification, to get across the idea I will use the following phrase: Islam for them is in the class of a “quaint, alien custom” rather than something they viscerally hate or believe their societies have dispensed with for the better. This is especially true, of course, for the anti-religious Jews among them.
For those from that general approach, of course, the alternative is to accept secular Zionism and support for non-religious forces in Israel, which are in the large majority of course.
2. Nationalism
Israel represents a nationalist movement and is thus anathema to Western leftists and intellectuals who are against nationalism. As with religion, of course, it is usually only the nationalism of their own people or patriotism toward their country they oppose. As with religion, they think this is a remnant of the “dark ages” of human division and mutual hatred which should be dispensed with as soon and completely as possible. Just as religion is identified with obscurantism and superstition, nationalism is identified with fascism and national chauvinism.
And, again, for the Jews among them who are assimilationist or believe the role of Jews is to be the most steadfast fighters for revolutionary change, Israel is especially repugnant.
Their idea is to make assimilation (and the disappearance of the Jews as a people) count by helping to create a glorious utopian society, the same kind of idea that mobilized Jews to be Communists in earlier generations. [If you are interested, read my book, Assimilation and its Discontents.] Jewish Communists fought, sacrificed, and died for decades only to find that the USSR's Communism became the most powerful antisemitic ideology during the Soviet Union's last four and a half decades.
For those from that general framework, a variant of acceptable Zionism historically has been support for left-of-center forces in Israel, not necessarily even far-left ones.
3. Nation-state/peoplehood
The idea that a country should consist of a distinct people, a central idea during the last two centuries and still dominant in most of the world, has become a sin in the thinking of the hegemonic view in the West, indeed the sin of “racism.”
It is important to note that this is true on two different levels:
First, in opposition to the idea that a specific ethnic group be virtually coexistent with the nation-state (the French in France; the Italians in Italy)
But also, second, that the population of a given country should have a coherent culture, identity, and worldview. After all, various countries have absorbed large numbers of immigrants but integrated them into a national community based on common beliefs. Multiculturalism has abandoned this approach.
In other words, it is not enough according to this ideology to have a multi-racial, multi-religious group of people who are "English" or ""French" for example, but a multi-racial, multi-religious group that belongs to multiple communities without an overarching identity and a basic common worldview. (Now that's a formula for the failure and collapse of a society into violence, poverty, and collapse if I've ever heard one.)
Actually, Israel is an example of a country that has absorbed large numbers of immigrants. In proportionate terms there is no nation state in the world that has done this to a greater extent. But Israel is a Jewish state, a state built around a people with a common identity, and this framework, which has been the norm for several centuries in the West, has suddenly been branded illegitimate. And so Israel is hated for this reason by those who would destroy their own people and nation-state. They don't want a successful example around to discourage suicidal tendencies in their countries.
Incidentally, if a Palestinian state ever comes into being it will be governed according to the constitution already written for it by the Palestinian Authority: An Arab state whose official religion is Islam and which will grant or withhold citizenship depending on whether one is a member of the Palestinian Arab people. And the world is now also accepting in practice a Hamas-ruled Palestinian Islamist state which even further restricts the definition of the nation. How ironic!
4. Israel Fights Revolutionaries
True, the Western Left is…leftist. It supposedly stands for widespread democracy, equality for women and homosexuals, secularism, and various other things. The revolutionary Islamists are rightists and have the opposite position on all of these issues.
But that’s not important. The self-identified revolutionaries of the West, even though they use no violence, see the revolutionaries of the Middle East as kith and kin. The latter are “fighting the man,” to use American slang. They want to overturn the system; they hate the West’s values and policies. So the parlor radicals of the West embrace them. After all, Che Guevara is dead and there are no Marxist revolutionary movements doing much.
So in revolutionary solidarity, elements of the Western elites embrace those who would love to torture or shoot them as romantic figures. For them, precisely because Israel is pro-Western, it is on the side of the “reactionaries.”
5. Israel Fights to Defend Itself
If you are under attack because people want to wipe you off the map and deliberately attack your civilians as their main strategy (it’s called terrorism), and you defend yourself, there is going to be violence. If there is violence and you are the least bit successful, there will be casualties on the other side. And inevitably in modern war—no matter how hard you try to avoid it—some of those casualties are going to be civilians.
There are many in Western elites who are against war and violence, at least unless it is waged “perfectly” with no casualties, or no military casualties, on the other side.
“Worse” yet, you might win the war. If the other side refuses to give up and make some kind of equitable peace, the conflict will go on. If you capture their territory and they refuse to make peace, you have to occupy it. All these things are impermissible according the (temporarily?) dominant ideology in much of the West.
Thus, Israel’s “sin” is to defend itself and to win. There are, however, rational people in the West who think this is a good thing. The cleverness of the strategy of Israel’s enemies is to use their own people as human shields, to promote their suffering to gain sympathy abroad and mobilize militancy at home. This fools many people in the West, though there are others who see through this ploy.
6. Israel is involved in Conflict
There are those in the West who think that conflict is not only a bad thing but a wholly unnecessary thing. There’s a Yiddish proverb that goes: Only a dead man has no problems. The extreme form of this as applied to contemporary views is if there’s a conflict caused by Israel’s existence, end Israel’s existence and there’s no more problem.
In addition, however, there is a more moderate version: Since conflict is unnatural, the conflict can and should be quickly ended. By demanding that the conflict only be ended on terms that ensure its security and end the conflict, Israel is being obstructive.
So for much of the anti-Israel left, the conflict can be ended real fast and would be only if Israel gave in on every point. Thus, there would be no violence or anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and no terrorism in the world.
This leads into…
7. Causes of Radicalism
To paraphrase Paul Berman, the new ideology refuses to face the fact that there are deep conflicts in the world and that there are anti-freedom forces seeking to take power and oppress others or even wipe them out. Consequently, there are two ways to deal with this: ignore the threat or insist that it can be wished away. (This one is also prevalent on the Israeli far left.)
Ignore the threat: There are no radicals, just people seeking to be free and materially well-off. So the threat to Israel would disappear if only Israel changed its policy or made huge concessions.
Wish away the threat: Be nice to the radicals, apologize to them, engage them, give them what they want, and they will become moderate.
Israel is thus in the way to solving all these big problems. Consequently, it is at fault for their continuation. Possibly Israelis are stupid and don’t understand that their real interest is to give in and give away. Of course, it is the “great geniuses” who understand nothing and would be in the crocodile’s belly before you can say, “Tom Freedman is an appalling sycophant.”
8. If you’re “non-white,” you’re automatically right; if you’re the underdog we’ll roll your log.
[This was a tough rhyme. Log-rolling is an old American political slang word, meaning that I will help you get what you want.]
Reacting against centuries of discrimination and racism, the current idea is not to banish racialism—as Martin Luther King advocated, to create a color-blind society—but merely to reverse it. Israel is seen as stronger, whiter, and First World. [In reality, the skin tone test wouldn’t work between Israel and some of its enemies.]
If you are a Western elite left-wing hegemonic type, you feel guilty for being rich. But that’s ok. You can hold onto everything you have (even a gas-guzzling car] and redeem yourself by having Israel pay the bill for you.
Being the underdog, however, does not make someone automatically virtuous, especially if your problem is largely your own fault. African-Americans faced slavery and discrimination and thus are legitimate underdogs; Israel’s enemies have repressive dictatorships, waged war and terrorism, and refused compromises that would have solved their problems (with Israel, at least). That’s why they are worse off. It is political vice, not virtue that has landed them there.
So if Israel has "made the desert bloom," produced so many great inventions and innovations that benefit humanity, won the wars and survived, that is all the more reason for those who hate Israel to hate Israel. As Bob Dylan writes, they say, "There's no success like failure." But, in fact, "Failure's no success at all." Or as I wrote years ago about Yasir Arafat, the trouble with having your strategy based on being an underdog is that you have to keep losing.
Another element here is the view that, to paraphrase an intellectual famous for being...an intellectual, Susan Sontag, Western civilization is the cancer of the world. Israel is thus part of that cancer which must be cut out. Or to paraphrase a famous slogan of the last group that seriously tried to wipe out the Jews, "Today Israel, Tomorrow the Western World!" Again, Israel's virtues--reasonably regulated capitalism, democracy, modernism, freedom, success--are precisely the reasons for it to be hated.
The success of America is poison to this portions of the elite because they don't want to believe that these techniques lead to success. The same applies to Europe. And they refuse to realize that their proposed policies will wreck their own countries. They want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, eat it, and then expect to still get golden eggs every day.
And so in many ways, Israel is merely a stand-in for everything they hate closer to home. This is an important secret that must be kept from its own people because it will lose the anti-Israel mob support. (Reminds me of the Canadian anti-Israel group which talked too much, going from condemning Israel as a settler-colonial state that should be abolished to saying the same thing about Canada. Oops!)
This is quite a long list. I should hasten to add that brevity forces simplification and that not all the above characteristics can be found in one person or political group. To do a proper job of explaining this, especially by offering the dozens of examples going through my mind as I write this, would require a book. Hopefully, though, this effort is useful for you.
Finally, there is an important other side to this analysis. Those in the West who don’t agree with the above list of items tend to be supportive of Israel. This doesn’t just mean conservatives but real liberals (in the American sense of that word). And as the extreme left wears out its welcome mainly due to other issues—a process that is happening pretty fast and steadily—the pendulum is swinging back. In fact, if one examines public opinion polls and looks beyond the elite mass media this trend is already visible.
Come to think of it, that's a really good reason for the anti-Israel group to hate Israel: It is living proof that they are wrong.
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.
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
CIA Chief Says Al-Qaida is Weaker. True. But So Is U.S., While Revolutionary Islamist Groups Are Stronger!
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
CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.
Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally—the most important actions damaging the group—took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.
But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida—a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week—but how one should regard that organization.
In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.
But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other--leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.
First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida’s role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.
Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida.
Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda.
U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn’t exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind.
The second, and more important, problem with Panetta’s triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries.
The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others.
Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused.
But while revolutionary Islamism was set back—at least temporarily—in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these.
Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.
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
CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.
Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally—the most important actions damaging the group—took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.
But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida—a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week—but how one should regard that organization.
In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.
But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other--leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.
First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida’s role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.
Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida.
Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda.
U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn’t exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind.
The second, and more important, problem with Panetta’s triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries.
The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others.
Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused.
But while revolutionary Islamism was set back—at least temporarily—in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these.
Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.
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.
"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.
The Privileged Slander: Why the Media Laps Up The Anti-Israel Lying Campaign
Please be subscriber 16,715. 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
Israel is subject daily to scores of false claims and slanders that receive a remarkable amount of credibility in Western media, academic, and intellectual circles even when no proof is offered.
Palestinian groups (including the Gaza and Palestinian Authority regimes), associated local and allied foreign non-government organizations, Western radical and anti-Israel groups, and politically committed journalists are eager to act as propaganda agents making up false stories or transmitting them without serious thought or checking.
Others have simply defined the Palestinians as the “victims” and “underdogs” while Israel is the “villain” and “oppressor.” Yet truth remains truth; academic and journalist standards are supposed to apply.
While regular journalists may ask for an official Israeli reaction to such stories the undermanned government agencies are deluged by hundreds of these stories, and committed to checking out seriously each one. Thus, the Israeli government cannot keep up with the flow of lies.
So the key question is to understand the deliberateness of this anti-Israel propaganda and evaluating the credibility of the sources.
An important aspect of this is to understand that Israel is a decent, democratic country with a free media that is energetic about exploring any alleged wrongdoing and a fair court system that does the same. To demonize Israel into a monstrous, murderous state—which is often done—makes people believe any negative story.
Some of these are big false stories—the alleged killing of Muhammad al-Dura and the supposed Jenin massacre—others are tiny. Some—like the claim Israel was murdering Palestinians to steal their organs-- get into the main Western newspapers while others only make it into smaller and non-English ones.
Taken together, this campaign of falsification is creating a big wave not only of anti-Israel sentiment but of antisemitism on a Medieval scale, simply the modern equivalent of claims that the Jews poisoned wells, spread Bubonic Plague, or murdered children to use their blood for Passover matzohs.
Come to think of it even those claims are still in circulation. Indeed, on June 8, the Syrian representative at the UN Human Rights Council (oh, the irony!) claimed in a speech that Israeli children are taught to extol blood-drinking. No Western delegate attacked the statement.
Here are three actual examples of well-educated Westerners believing such modern legends reported to me recently by colleagues:
--A former classmate, one told me, claimed that the Palestinians are living in death camps, being starved, etc. Asked to provide facts and provided with evidence to the contrary, he could provide no real examples. Finally, he remarked, `The truth is always somewhere in the middle.’”
--Hundreds of American college professors signed a petition claiming that Israel was supposedly about to throw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of the West Bank though there was zero evidence of any such intention and, of course, nothing ever happened.
--A British writer of some fame claimed, on the basis of an alleged single conversation with a questionable source, that Israel was preparing gas chambers for the mass murder of Palestinians. When asked if she was really claiming this would happen, she stated that it wasn’t going to happen but only because people like her had sounded the alarm to prevent it.
And what of the accusations of genocide contained in an article by sensationalist Israeli reporter Uzi Mahnaimi (even though his stories almost always prove to be wrong the Sunday Times never learns) and the respected Marie Colvin's November 1998 in The Sunday Times reporting Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations? Or the Guardian's more recent distortion of documentation to claim that Israel was selling nuclear weapons to South Africa?
There is no limit. When stories are proven wrong, the damage remains, apologies are non-existent or muted, and no lesson is learned because the same process is soon repeated. (In the Guardian, it is repeated not only on a daily basis but sometimes several times a day!) But perhaps readers could learn to disregard what they have repeatedly seen has been untrue?
Here is one example plucked from today’s mail. The Palestinian Authority Health Ministry claim Israel has seized seven oxygen machines intended for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and paid for by the Norwegian government. It said that a protest was being made to Norway. The story was picked up by several European newspapers. No evidence or specifics—what Israeli agency held them up? What dates? What hospitals were these for?--was provided.
Note, as in so many of these stories, the Israeli goal is said to be murder pure and simple. The message conveyed is: What kind of people would behave this way? The Israelis (or Jews in general) not only don't deserve to have a state, they don't even deserve to live. Wiping them off the planet would be doing the world a favor. Hmm, where have we heard this before?
Asked to look into the oxygen machine story, an Israeli official did so and pointed out that there are no controls over such imports into the West Bank so there would be no basis for holding up anything going there. As for Gaza, those directly involved in the process of sending in aid note that no applications to import such machines has been filed, there is no record of any such machines arriving, and thus nothing had been held up.
In short, the story is completely false, presuming that the Palestinian Authority health ministry won't provide documents and specifics. But that isn't going to happen as it will just be on to the next false story, hoping for a bigger media response.
Having seen so many such stories disproved over the years—as Israel’s credibility, while not perfect, has compared favorably with that of any Western democratic state—one might think a lesson would be learned. But as the great American journalist Eric Severeid remarked many years ago, nothing can protect someone when the media sets out deliberately to misunderstand and report falsely about them.
In addition, they should only repeat, report, or believe stories based on credible identified sources citing specific names, dates, and details. In addition, stories or claims should be internally logical and make sense given known facts. The idea that Israel enjoys killing or injuring Palestinians for fun does not meet that test.
Honorable journalists and scholars should take note and approach these false stories more skeptically. They should also reexamine their stereotypes and remember that their political views should be kept as much as possible out of their professional work.
Not so long ago, the above points would have been taken for granted as the most basic and obvious principles. They need to be relearned.
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
Israel is subject daily to scores of false claims and slanders that receive a remarkable amount of credibility in Western media, academic, and intellectual circles even when no proof is offered.
Palestinian groups (including the Gaza and Palestinian Authority regimes), associated local and allied foreign non-government organizations, Western radical and anti-Israel groups, and politically committed journalists are eager to act as propaganda agents making up false stories or transmitting them without serious thought or checking.
Others have simply defined the Palestinians as the “victims” and “underdogs” while Israel is the “villain” and “oppressor.” Yet truth remains truth; academic and journalist standards are supposed to apply.
While regular journalists may ask for an official Israeli reaction to such stories the undermanned government agencies are deluged by hundreds of these stories, and committed to checking out seriously each one. Thus, the Israeli government cannot keep up with the flow of lies.
So the key question is to understand the deliberateness of this anti-Israel propaganda and evaluating the credibility of the sources.
An important aspect of this is to understand that Israel is a decent, democratic country with a free media that is energetic about exploring any alleged wrongdoing and a fair court system that does the same. To demonize Israel into a monstrous, murderous state—which is often done—makes people believe any negative story.
Some of these are big false stories—the alleged killing of Muhammad al-Dura and the supposed Jenin massacre—others are tiny. Some—like the claim Israel was murdering Palestinians to steal their organs-- get into the main Western newspapers while others only make it into smaller and non-English ones.
Taken together, this campaign of falsification is creating a big wave not only of anti-Israel sentiment but of antisemitism on a Medieval scale, simply the modern equivalent of claims that the Jews poisoned wells, spread Bubonic Plague, or murdered children to use their blood for Passover matzohs.
Come to think of it even those claims are still in circulation. Indeed, on June 8, the Syrian representative at the UN Human Rights Council (oh, the irony!) claimed in a speech that Israeli children are taught to extol blood-drinking. No Western delegate attacked the statement.
Here are three actual examples of well-educated Westerners believing such modern legends reported to me recently by colleagues:
--A former classmate, one told me, claimed that the Palestinians are living in death camps, being starved, etc. Asked to provide facts and provided with evidence to the contrary, he could provide no real examples. Finally, he remarked, `The truth is always somewhere in the middle.’”
--Hundreds of American college professors signed a petition claiming that Israel was supposedly about to throw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of the West Bank though there was zero evidence of any such intention and, of course, nothing ever happened.
--A British writer of some fame claimed, on the basis of an alleged single conversation with a questionable source, that Israel was preparing gas chambers for the mass murder of Palestinians. When asked if she was really claiming this would happen, she stated that it wasn’t going to happen but only because people like her had sounded the alarm to prevent it.
And what of the accusations of genocide contained in an article by sensationalist Israeli reporter Uzi Mahnaimi (even though his stories almost always prove to be wrong the Sunday Times never learns) and the respected Marie Colvin's November 1998 in The Sunday Times reporting Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations? Or the Guardian's more recent distortion of documentation to claim that Israel was selling nuclear weapons to South Africa?
There is no limit. When stories are proven wrong, the damage remains, apologies are non-existent or muted, and no lesson is learned because the same process is soon repeated. (In the Guardian, it is repeated not only on a daily basis but sometimes several times a day!) But perhaps readers could learn to disregard what they have repeatedly seen has been untrue?
Here is one example plucked from today’s mail. The Palestinian Authority Health Ministry claim Israel has seized seven oxygen machines intended for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and paid for by the Norwegian government. It said that a protest was being made to Norway. The story was picked up by several European newspapers. No evidence or specifics—what Israeli agency held them up? What dates? What hospitals were these for?--was provided.
Note, as in so many of these stories, the Israeli goal is said to be murder pure and simple. The message conveyed is: What kind of people would behave this way? The Israelis (or Jews in general) not only don't deserve to have a state, they don't even deserve to live. Wiping them off the planet would be doing the world a favor. Hmm, where have we heard this before?
Asked to look into the oxygen machine story, an Israeli official did so and pointed out that there are no controls over such imports into the West Bank so there would be no basis for holding up anything going there. As for Gaza, those directly involved in the process of sending in aid note that no applications to import such machines has been filed, there is no record of any such machines arriving, and thus nothing had been held up.
In short, the story is completely false, presuming that the Palestinian Authority health ministry won't provide documents and specifics. But that isn't going to happen as it will just be on to the next false story, hoping for a bigger media response.
Having seen so many such stories disproved over the years—as Israel’s credibility, while not perfect, has compared favorably with that of any Western democratic state—one might think a lesson would be learned. But as the great American journalist Eric Severeid remarked many years ago, nothing can protect someone when the media sets out deliberately to misunderstand and report falsely about them.
In addition, they should only repeat, report, or believe stories based on credible identified sources citing specific names, dates, and details. In addition, stories or claims should be internally logical and make sense given known facts. The idea that Israel enjoys killing or injuring Palestinians for fun does not meet that test.
Honorable journalists and scholars should take note and approach these false stories more skeptically. They should also reexamine their stereotypes and remember that their political views should be kept as much as possible out of their professional work.
Not so long ago, the above points would have been taken for granted as the most basic and obvious principles. They need to be relearned.
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 26, 2010
Europe Battles Over Its Future: A Dutch Case Study
The following article was published in PajamasMedia here. If you forward or reprint it please give them the link and credit. Please note that they chose a title different from the one I preferred and have put into this text. I include the full article below for your convenience.
Please be subscriber 16,708. 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
The political situation in Europe today is quite different from the stereotype of a continent hostile to the United States (even if Obama is personally popular) and Israel; appeasement-oriented toward Iran and revolutionary Islamism; and eagerly multicultural and Politically Correct. True, it is more oriented in that direction than North America, but there is a real struggle afoot.
In many countries—notably the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway, and to a slightly lesser extent the United Kingdom and France—the partisan gap between the left and center-right marks a boundary of much greater significance than a decade or two ago. Although each situation is different, the parties of the left tend to be more anti-American and anti-Israel and less alert to the threat of revolutionary Islamism as well as favoring continued large-scale immigration and big-state, big-spending policies.
Take the Netherlands as a case study. After elections last month, the parties of the center-right hold 83 seats while those of the left have 67. Since there are ten parties in parliament, talks to form a coalition government will last for weeks, especially since the two largest have only twenty percent each. In the elections, only three seats changed hands between blocs.
But the big news was the shift within the center-right, the rise of the People's Party for Freedom (PVV) led by the controversial Geert Wilders, which almost tripled its vote, going from 9 to 24 seats. To his enemies, almost no epithet is too extreme to throw against him. The flamboyant Wilders has been outspoken in opposing immigration and especially that of Muslims, making a sharp critique of political Islamism and sometimes Islam itself.
The power of the Dutch state was turned on Wilders, who is currently on trial for making statements which in America would fall well within Constitutional protection. State television ran documentaries during the election designed to show he was a virtual Nazi.
What is Wilders’ program? First, a sharp limitation on asylum seekers admitted into the country and none from Muslim-majority states. No dual nationality; new mosques; separate Islamic schools; wearing of burqas; or government subsidies for Islamic media. Mosques where violence is propagated will be closed and there would be heavy punishment for female circumcision. For their first ten years in Holland, immigrants receive no social benefits or citizenship. At the end of that period, those with no criminal record will receive full citizenship.
The rise in support for Wilders’ party is in large part a response to serious concern over the domestic situation in the country. Aside from the assassination of a filmmaker by a radical Islamist, there has been a steep increase in crime and social welfare spending. Amsterdam, not long ago the most gay-friendly city in the world, is a place where homosexuals might be attacked in the streets by Muslim immigrant youth, while a recent television program that followed three Jews wearing identifiable garb as such in a stroll around the city showed them being harassed and insulted. Twenty percent of Dutch teachers report that attempts to teach about the Holocaust, in the country of Anne Frank, were rejected or disrupted by immigrant children.
While Muslims still comprise only a bit more than 5 percent of the population, whole areas of Dutch cities have a majority of people who are recent immigrants and whose commitment to assimilation into the country's norms is questionable. For example, polls show that much of the country’s Muslim population sympathizes with the September 11 attacks. Certainly, they disagree with the Netherlands' rather libertarian views on women's rights and homosexuality.
One of the main arguments against mass immigration is that it is incredibly costly to Dutch taxpayers. A report was written by the country’s most respected independent think tank said the bill came to 7.2 billion Euros a year for a country of only about 16 million people. This is not much higher than the government’s own estimate of 6 billion Euros a year.
And here’s where it gets interesting. For while the focus was on Wilders’ VVD, the second biggest winner was the mainstream conservative (in European terminology, liberal) People's party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which went from 22 to 31 seats. The VVD favors lower taxes, smaller government, less government regulation. While Wilders often focuses his criticism on Islam itself, the VVD is quite critical of radical Islamism.
And though the VVD’s positions are less extreme than Wilders, it also favors serious reductions in immigration, the closing of mosques where radical doctrines are preached, and the denial of social welfare payments for immigrants during their first decade in the country. These two parties received one-third of the vote and three Christian parties, from whose voters Wilders and the VVD obtained their increased support have somewhat similar stances.
For instance, here’s what the platform of the Christian Union, the most liberal—in the American sense of that word—of these parties:
”Every Dutchman has the right to assembly, to religion and to express his opinion. But financial support of Dutch political, cultural and religious institutes from demonstrably non-free countries (such as Saudi-Arabia and Iran) is not permitted. It's allowed to protect a free society from the importation of bondage." It also supports banning the burqa from public buildings, public transport, and schools.
A similar pattern emerges regarding stances toward Israel. Wilders is an outspoken supporter but the other parties are also sympathetic, though there is an anti-Israel minority in the VVD. The foreign minister, for example, a Christian Democrat, said that Israel was entitled to stop Gaza flotilla ships in international waters, refused to condemn Israel’s actions, and supports tough sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. While the four non-Wilders center-right parties are more nuanced in their attitude than decades ago, they are certainly not kneejerk anti-Israel in their positions.
Thus, about 55 percent of Dutch voters backed parties that want a real change in key policies.
Why is nothing dramatic likely to happen? Because 45 percent endorsed parties on the left and given the Dutch passion for consensus, the existence of so many parties, and the reluctance of several parties to bring Wilders’ party into government some kind of broad coalition will likely emerge.
On the left, the largest party, Labour, led by former Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen, got less than half of the overall vote. It can be described now as the party of the Dutch status quo, that is, continuation of existing policies. Despite being led by a nominal Jew, it is very critical of Israel and totally uncritical of Hamas. The left favors increases in taxes and government regulations.
Outsiders would view this situation of deadlock between two sides with such different visions of Dutch politics and society as a big problem. In contrast, the Dutch believe they thrive on this kind of paradox, finding some compromise to ease them through. Yet can a major crisis be long avoided given the economic and social issues faced by the Netherlands and so many other European states today?
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.
Please be subscriber 16,708. 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
The political situation in Europe today is quite different from the stereotype of a continent hostile to the United States (even if Obama is personally popular) and Israel; appeasement-oriented toward Iran and revolutionary Islamism; and eagerly multicultural and Politically Correct. True, it is more oriented in that direction than North America, but there is a real struggle afoot.
In many countries—notably the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway, and to a slightly lesser extent the United Kingdom and France—the partisan gap between the left and center-right marks a boundary of much greater significance than a decade or two ago. Although each situation is different, the parties of the left tend to be more anti-American and anti-Israel and less alert to the threat of revolutionary Islamism as well as favoring continued large-scale immigration and big-state, big-spending policies.
Take the Netherlands as a case study. After elections last month, the parties of the center-right hold 83 seats while those of the left have 67. Since there are ten parties in parliament, talks to form a coalition government will last for weeks, especially since the two largest have only twenty percent each. In the elections, only three seats changed hands between blocs.
But the big news was the shift within the center-right, the rise of the People's Party for Freedom (PVV) led by the controversial Geert Wilders, which almost tripled its vote, going from 9 to 24 seats. To his enemies, almost no epithet is too extreme to throw against him. The flamboyant Wilders has been outspoken in opposing immigration and especially that of Muslims, making a sharp critique of political Islamism and sometimes Islam itself.
The power of the Dutch state was turned on Wilders, who is currently on trial for making statements which in America would fall well within Constitutional protection. State television ran documentaries during the election designed to show he was a virtual Nazi.
What is Wilders’ program? First, a sharp limitation on asylum seekers admitted into the country and none from Muslim-majority states. No dual nationality; new mosques; separate Islamic schools; wearing of burqas; or government subsidies for Islamic media. Mosques where violence is propagated will be closed and there would be heavy punishment for female circumcision. For their first ten years in Holland, immigrants receive no social benefits or citizenship. At the end of that period, those with no criminal record will receive full citizenship.
The rise in support for Wilders’ party is in large part a response to serious concern over the domestic situation in the country. Aside from the assassination of a filmmaker by a radical Islamist, there has been a steep increase in crime and social welfare spending. Amsterdam, not long ago the most gay-friendly city in the world, is a place where homosexuals might be attacked in the streets by Muslim immigrant youth, while a recent television program that followed three Jews wearing identifiable garb as such in a stroll around the city showed them being harassed and insulted. Twenty percent of Dutch teachers report that attempts to teach about the Holocaust, in the country of Anne Frank, were rejected or disrupted by immigrant children.
While Muslims still comprise only a bit more than 5 percent of the population, whole areas of Dutch cities have a majority of people who are recent immigrants and whose commitment to assimilation into the country's norms is questionable. For example, polls show that much of the country’s Muslim population sympathizes with the September 11 attacks. Certainly, they disagree with the Netherlands' rather libertarian views on women's rights and homosexuality.
One of the main arguments against mass immigration is that it is incredibly costly to Dutch taxpayers. A report was written by the country’s most respected independent think tank said the bill came to 7.2 billion Euros a year for a country of only about 16 million people. This is not much higher than the government’s own estimate of 6 billion Euros a year.
And here’s where it gets interesting. For while the focus was on Wilders’ VVD, the second biggest winner was the mainstream conservative (in European terminology, liberal) People's party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which went from 22 to 31 seats. The VVD favors lower taxes, smaller government, less government regulation. While Wilders often focuses his criticism on Islam itself, the VVD is quite critical of radical Islamism.
And though the VVD’s positions are less extreme than Wilders, it also favors serious reductions in immigration, the closing of mosques where radical doctrines are preached, and the denial of social welfare payments for immigrants during their first decade in the country. These two parties received one-third of the vote and three Christian parties, from whose voters Wilders and the VVD obtained their increased support have somewhat similar stances.
For instance, here’s what the platform of the Christian Union, the most liberal—in the American sense of that word—of these parties:
”Every Dutchman has the right to assembly, to religion and to express his opinion. But financial support of Dutch political, cultural and religious institutes from demonstrably non-free countries (such as Saudi-Arabia and Iran) is not permitted. It's allowed to protect a free society from the importation of bondage." It also supports banning the burqa from public buildings, public transport, and schools.
A similar pattern emerges regarding stances toward Israel. Wilders is an outspoken supporter but the other parties are also sympathetic, though there is an anti-Israel minority in the VVD. The foreign minister, for example, a Christian Democrat, said that Israel was entitled to stop Gaza flotilla ships in international waters, refused to condemn Israel’s actions, and supports tough sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. While the four non-Wilders center-right parties are more nuanced in their attitude than decades ago, they are certainly not kneejerk anti-Israel in their positions.
Thus, about 55 percent of Dutch voters backed parties that want a real change in key policies.
Why is nothing dramatic likely to happen? Because 45 percent endorsed parties on the left and given the Dutch passion for consensus, the existence of so many parties, and the reluctance of several parties to bring Wilders’ party into government some kind of broad coalition will likely emerge.
On the left, the largest party, Labour, led by former Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen, got less than half of the overall vote. It can be described now as the party of the Dutch status quo, that is, continuation of existing policies. Despite being led by a nominal Jew, it is very critical of Israel and totally uncritical of Hamas. The left favors increases in taxes and government regulations.
Outsiders would view this situation of deadlock between two sides with such different visions of Dutch politics and society as a big problem. In contrast, the Dutch believe they thrive on this kind of paradox, finding some compromise to ease them through. Yet can a major crisis be long avoided given the economic and social issues faced by the Netherlands and so many other European states today?
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.
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Terrorist's World View Signals What Our World View Should Be
Please be subscriber 16,704. 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
A dozen words spoken at his trial by Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square would-be bomber, are worth studying very carefully. When asked why he targeted American civilians in the streets of New York, Shahzad replied:
"Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same."
On one level, this is a standard terrorist position, used against countries from India to Israel and beyond. Significantly, it can only be applied only against democratic countries. Everyone is a legitimate target precisely because the country is a free one. Of course, the terrorist is attacking on the basis of a totalitarian ideology which he wants to impose everywhere possible.
In this case, in the statement, "We consider them all the same," the word "all" refers to the people.
But that's not the main point I want to make.
The word "all" also refers to the governments they elect. In this case, the government the American people elected is that of Barack Hussain Obama, a president determined to prove to Muslims that he is their friend no matter what that costs.
No doubt, some are so convinced. According to public opinion polls, however, the change in the views of those in Muslim-majority countries has been--despite his efforts--pretty small. Many of them are going to consider any American government to be "all the same." That's not something that applied just to George W. Bush. The decision to carry out what became the September 11 attacks, the planning, and much of the implementation took place when William Jefferson Clinton was president.
As for the revolutionary Islamists--be they al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizballah, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhoods--or the radical regimes--be they Iran, Syria, the de facto Islamic Republic of Gaza, or others--all the U.S. governments are definitely the same. Indeed, they make this point explicitly in their declarations and media every day.
To them, the American people are "all the same" and the American governments are "all the same." The argument between liberals and conservatives on this point is irrelevant. They hate the United States because of its values and they also hate the United States because of its policies.
But the policies aspect is not over the details--military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq--nor is it over just support of Israel, since it is equally so regarding the support of any existing regime in a non-radical Muslim-majority state. There is no conceivable U.S. policy that will satisfy the revolutionaries, save perhaps a full withdrawal from the Middle East and abandonment of support for any government in the region.
There is, however, a best-possible policy for the United States: fight the revolutionary Islamists and support, to an appropriate degree, all the non-radical regimes being attacked by Islamists , be it Algeria or the Philippines, Thailand or Morocco, Israel or India, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. And this includes the opposition in Turkey and Iran, as well as democratic forces in Lebanon that oppose domination by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.
In contrast to the Islamists, in the case of Muslim-majority countries, they don't select the government and we don't consider them to be all the same. The differentiation we should make is that between enemies--revolutionary Islamists and radical anti-Western nationalists--and the rest, who might not be warm allies but are people who can be worked with to prevent their own countries, the region, and perhaps even the world from being drowned in blood and violence.
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
A dozen words spoken at his trial by Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square would-be bomber, are worth studying very carefully. When asked why he targeted American civilians in the streets of New York, Shahzad replied:
"Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same."
On one level, this is a standard terrorist position, used against countries from India to Israel and beyond. Significantly, it can only be applied only against democratic countries. Everyone is a legitimate target precisely because the country is a free one. Of course, the terrorist is attacking on the basis of a totalitarian ideology which he wants to impose everywhere possible.
In this case, in the statement, "We consider them all the same," the word "all" refers to the people.
But that's not the main point I want to make.
The word "all" also refers to the governments they elect. In this case, the government the American people elected is that of Barack Hussain Obama, a president determined to prove to Muslims that he is their friend no matter what that costs.
No doubt, some are so convinced. According to public opinion polls, however, the change in the views of those in Muslim-majority countries has been--despite his efforts--pretty small. Many of them are going to consider any American government to be "all the same." That's not something that applied just to George W. Bush. The decision to carry out what became the September 11 attacks, the planning, and much of the implementation took place when William Jefferson Clinton was president.
As for the revolutionary Islamists--be they al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizballah, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhoods--or the radical regimes--be they Iran, Syria, the de facto Islamic Republic of Gaza, or others--all the U.S. governments are definitely the same. Indeed, they make this point explicitly in their declarations and media every day.
To them, the American people are "all the same" and the American governments are "all the same." The argument between liberals and conservatives on this point is irrelevant. They hate the United States because of its values and they also hate the United States because of its policies.
But the policies aspect is not over the details--military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq--nor is it over just support of Israel, since it is equally so regarding the support of any existing regime in a non-radical Muslim-majority state. There is no conceivable U.S. policy that will satisfy the revolutionaries, save perhaps a full withdrawal from the Middle East and abandonment of support for any government in the region.
There is, however, a best-possible policy for the United States: fight the revolutionary Islamists and support, to an appropriate degree, all the non-radical regimes being attacked by Islamists , be it Algeria or the Philippines, Thailand or Morocco, Israel or India, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. And this includes the opposition in Turkey and Iran, as well as democratic forces in Lebanon that oppose domination by Iran, Syria, and Hizballah.
In contrast to the Islamists, in the case of Muslim-majority countries, they don't select the government and we don't consider them to be all the same. The differentiation we should make is that between enemies--revolutionary Islamists and radical anti-Western nationalists--and the rest, who might not be warm allies but are people who can be worked with to prevent their own countries, the region, and perhaps even the world from being drowned in blood and violence.
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.
Benjamin Disraeli on Middle East Democracy, 1830
By Barry Rubin
In one of his novels, the young Benjamin Disraeli, future British prime minister and romantic Zionist among many other things, records a meeting between a character and Muhammad Ali, founder of Egypt’s modern monarchy, whose descendents ruled the country until the Arab nationalists seized power in 1952. Many historians think the episode is based on a real encounter between the two during Disraeli’s visit to Egypt around 1830.
The Egyptian soldier-ruler asked Disraeli if the young man thought the British political system was adaptable to Egypt. Disraeli responded that Britain’s institutions had been evolved over a very long period of time and that there was no political system that requires more social self-discipline and long-term preparation than choosing a government through democratic elections.
Almost two centuries later, this same topic continues to be at the center of debates on the Middle East and the basic argument remains the same.
In one of his novels, the young Benjamin Disraeli, future British prime minister and romantic Zionist among many other things, records a meeting between a character and Muhammad Ali, founder of Egypt’s modern monarchy, whose descendents ruled the country until the Arab nationalists seized power in 1952. Many historians think the episode is based on a real encounter between the two during Disraeli’s visit to Egypt around 1830.
The Egyptian soldier-ruler asked Disraeli if the young man thought the British political system was adaptable to Egypt. Disraeli responded that Britain’s institutions had been evolved over a very long period of time and that there was no political system that requires more social self-discipline and long-term preparation than choosing a government through democratic elections.
Almost two centuries later, this same topic continues to be at the center of debates on the Middle East and the basic argument remains the same.
Two Good Articles for Understanding Afghanistan
By Barry Rubin
While these two articles seem to be in argument, if you read both of them and see the overlap this will give a good sense of the situation and prospects for Afghanistan.
Diana West skewers the U.S. strategy as trying to change a society that just doesn't fit the model being employed. Using his own military experience, Bruce Kesler points out while the strategy partly makes sense but also needs to be altered. Both see the Obama Administration's political leaders as being the main problem but note that General McChrystal's approach--which the White House accepted, albeit with fewer troops deployed--also has serious weaknesses.
For my article that discusses these issues more generally see here.
While these two articles seem to be in argument, if you read both of them and see the overlap this will give a good sense of the situation and prospects for Afghanistan.
Diana West skewers the U.S. strategy as trying to change a society that just doesn't fit the model being employed. Using his own military experience, Bruce Kesler points out while the strategy partly makes sense but also needs to be altered. Both see the Obama Administration's political leaders as being the main problem but note that General McChrystal's approach--which the White House accepted, albeit with fewer troops deployed--also has serious weaknesses.
For my article that discusses these issues more generally see here.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Too Early To Cheer: Will the White House Actually Implement Congressional Sanctions on Iran?
By Barry Rubin
The American media is starting a campaign to promote the story that President Barack Obama will soon sign the toughest anti-Iran sanctions in history when the bill passed by Congress reaches his desk. In fact, the White House has already watered down the original legislation.
Beyond that, a very large number of waivers have been added to the bill by the Democratic-dominated conference committee. This means that President Obama can suspend any portion of the new economic sanctions on Iran at will, sometimes even being given the power to avoid having to do any investigation. He need merely state that implementing any such provision is not in the national interest.
In addition, when the president puts his name on the bill, he may make a Signing Statement in which he could define or further limit the sanctions.
All of this is especially significant because the main problem limiting sanctions’ pressure on Iran in the past was not so much the lack of laws to do so—sanctions have been passed since 1996—but the chief executive’s failure or refusal to implement them.
Why hasn’t this been done and why should we watch closely how Obama handles these matters?
First, it can be argued that the president needs flexibility since he might want to remove sanctions as an incentive for Iran to negotiate or as a concession to Iran for anything it gives.
This makes sense in principle but the problem is that the administration has been too quick to seek engagement with Tehran, too eager to make unilateral concessions, too naïve in interpreting the Iranian regime as moderate, and too timid about getting tough. In other words, it is possible that the administration will take credit for congressional sanctions that it delayed for six months and then not even carry them out in (unrealistic) hope of making some deal with Tehran.
Second, sanctions may be reduced because they damage U.S. business interests and lobbyists complain.
Third, rather than try to enforce sanctions in ways that lead to friction with European allies, the Obama Administration might give them an exemption. This has happened repeatedly in the past. Even more important, it could be a way of avoiding any conflict with Russia and China, even as these two countries undercut the sanctions to a large extent.
Having said all this, it is important to note that the new law would increase the pressure on Iran regarding the financial aspects (making it harder for Iran to borrow money, finance projects, or manage trade), as well as restrictions on refined petroleum exports to Iran. But if, for example, China builds more refineries for Iran, without the U.S. government saying or doing anything, these won’t matter so much.
One provision killed by the administration concerned prohibiting or discouraging countries giving export credits to companies investing or trading with Iran.
Recently, I gave a briefing to staffers in the House of Representatives and pointed out that the U.S. Congress was just about the only government institution that provided some hope regarding U.S. foreign policy. But now the sanctions are going to be in the Executive Branch’s hands. Let’s carefully monitor White House behavior on this issue.
The American media is starting a campaign to promote the story that President Barack Obama will soon sign the toughest anti-Iran sanctions in history when the bill passed by Congress reaches his desk. In fact, the White House has already watered down the original legislation.
Beyond that, a very large number of waivers have been added to the bill by the Democratic-dominated conference committee. This means that President Obama can suspend any portion of the new economic sanctions on Iran at will, sometimes even being given the power to avoid having to do any investigation. He need merely state that implementing any such provision is not in the national interest.
In addition, when the president puts his name on the bill, he may make a Signing Statement in which he could define or further limit the sanctions.
All of this is especially significant because the main problem limiting sanctions’ pressure on Iran in the past was not so much the lack of laws to do so—sanctions have been passed since 1996—but the chief executive’s failure or refusal to implement them.
Why hasn’t this been done and why should we watch closely how Obama handles these matters?
First, it can be argued that the president needs flexibility since he might want to remove sanctions as an incentive for Iran to negotiate or as a concession to Iran for anything it gives.
This makes sense in principle but the problem is that the administration has been too quick to seek engagement with Tehran, too eager to make unilateral concessions, too naïve in interpreting the Iranian regime as moderate, and too timid about getting tough. In other words, it is possible that the administration will take credit for congressional sanctions that it delayed for six months and then not even carry them out in (unrealistic) hope of making some deal with Tehran.
Second, sanctions may be reduced because they damage U.S. business interests and lobbyists complain.
Third, rather than try to enforce sanctions in ways that lead to friction with European allies, the Obama Administration might give them an exemption. This has happened repeatedly in the past. Even more important, it could be a way of avoiding any conflict with Russia and China, even as these two countries undercut the sanctions to a large extent.
Having said all this, it is important to note that the new law would increase the pressure on Iran regarding the financial aspects (making it harder for Iran to borrow money, finance projects, or manage trade), as well as restrictions on refined petroleum exports to Iran. But if, for example, China builds more refineries for Iran, without the U.S. government saying or doing anything, these won’t matter so much.
One provision killed by the administration concerned prohibiting or discouraging countries giving export credits to companies investing or trading with Iran.
Recently, I gave a briefing to staffers in the House of Representatives and pointed out that the U.S. Congress was just about the only government institution that provided some hope regarding U.S. foreign policy. But now the sanctions are going to be in the Executive Branch’s hands. Let’s carefully monitor White House behavior on this issue.
White House Announcement on Gaza Shows the Missing Element: Strategic Rationality
Please be subscriber 16,689. 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
"As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened." --Clive Barker, Galilee.
Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, "White House on Israel’s Announcement on Gaza," as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.
The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:
"The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change."
One would expect that a rational policy would use the words "unsustainable" and "demands fundamental change" to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.
The statement continues:
"On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank."
Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.
Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.
Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?
This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.
In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.
Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?
The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons."
In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.
Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel's concessions aren't sufficient. "There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6."
So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: "We will work...to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank."
Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian "freedom of movement"?
Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever:
"We strongly re-affirm Israel’s right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention."
Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not.
The statement adds: "We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward." But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that "improve life" for the people of Gaza?
And the statement ends:
"We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza."
Of course, all of this won't discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as "unnecessary?" And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won't even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn't steal them!
So in this statement there is not one word--not one word--of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.
Let's assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I'm not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes.
In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don't want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken.
Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions?
In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problematic as the president's goal is--reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip--the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented.
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
"As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened." --Clive Barker, Galilee.
Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, "White House on Israel’s Announcement on Gaza," as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government.
The June 20 White House statement opens thusly:
"The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change."
One would expect that a rational policy would use the words "unsustainable" and "demands fundamental change" to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime.
The statement continues:
"On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank."
Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money.
Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution.
Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority?
This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program.
In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state.
Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit?
The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons."
In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach.
Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel's concessions aren't sufficient. "There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6."
So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: "We will work...to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank."
Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian "freedom of movement"?
Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever:
"We strongly re-affirm Israel’s right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention."
Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not.
The statement adds: "We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward." But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that "improve life" for the people of Gaza?
And the statement ends:
"We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza."
Of course, all of this won't discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as "unnecessary?" And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won't even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn't steal them!
So in this statement there is not one word--not one word--of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans.
Let's assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I'm not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes.
In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don't want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken.
Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions?
In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problematic as the president's goal is--reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip--the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented.
Obama's Not Even Popular in the Middle East! So What's the Point?
Please be subscriber 16,687. 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
The last pillar of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, his alleged popularity in the region, has gone bye-bye. All the apologies, distancing from Israel, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the engagements with Syria and Iran, the ban on using the word “Islamism,” and all the other apparatus of the new, non-strategic strategy have availed him—and U.S. interests—not.
Why? It’s very simple. On one hand, there are the enemies of America who don’t take that stance just because they thought George W. Bush was icky. They want--depending on who we are talking about--to conquer the Middle East, take over their own countries, establish a Caliphate, lord it over neighbors, wipe Israel off the map, turn women into chattel, get rid of the Christians, expel Western influence from the region, and/or transform their own countries into Islamist utopian dictatorships.
So why should we expect them to care whether the U.S. president is a nice guy who likes them and is really sorry for any time in the past when America actually did or tried to do something in the region? Indeed, Middle East dictators and revolutionaries also believe that nice guys finish last.
Then there are those who depend on the United States for their survival. You may think first of Israel but the list includes pretty much every Arabic-speaking government—more than a dozen—all of them except for Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and the Gaza Strip Islamist dictatorship of Hamas. They want a strong, determined U.S. policy that protects them from their radical enemies at home and abroad. If Washington can't provide that, these rulers seek their own deal with the revolutionaries in order to survive.
Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone—but does due to bad ideology and media coverage—that Obama isn’t popular. According to the latest Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project poll, he’s gone down in every Muslim-majority country. Only 17 percent of people in Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt have a positive view of the United States. In Egypt, America is less popular than it was when Bush was president.
And in some cases, Obama is less popular than the United States as a country! In Pakistan 17 percent like America, only 8 percent like Obama, despite billions in U.S. aid rained down unconditionally on that country. In Turkey, he leads the popularity of the United States by only 6 percent.
Of course, the low figures are being spun by administration supporters to suggest that if only the United States pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned Israel completely, and perhaps held its breath until turning blue, this would all change.
Meanwhile, despite all of Obama’s efforts to prove that he isn’t a leader and listens to everyone, most people in the world still think the United States is too unilateral in its actions. And they always will.
It is true America's unpopularity stems from its values. It is also true that America's unpopularity stems from its policies. But that doesn't mean the policies are "wrong." It also doesn't mean that changing these policies will make America popular.
First, the changes would have to be very extreme. Really and fully abandoning Israel, for example, so its people could be wiped out or repressed by anti-American forces.
Second, they would have to go against U.S. interests. Really and fully, perhaps, abandoning Arab regimes so that they are overthrown by anti-American Islamist revolutionaries.
Third, not everyone in the region wants the same thing. For example, U.S. support for Turkey's Islamist regime makes it very unpopular among large segments of the Turkish public, while if government policy were to oppose Egypt's regime as repressive it might alienate as many Egyptians as it would please.
That's why an obsessive hunt for popularity should never be the foundation of policy or strategy. In that framework, for example, a U.S. government might accept a terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, genocidal-oriented, client of Iran on the Mediterranean that would treat women like the Taliban and chase out Christians. Why? Because supporting sanctions to weaken that regime is unpopular in the Muslim-majority world! (And, yes, that's precisely what's happening now.)
A sensible public will stop saying that Obama has succeeded because he made America more popular in the world.
A sensible government would evaluate this situation and all the administration's failures, rethink its world view, and change course. Good news? Well, I said a “sensible government.”
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
The last pillar of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, his alleged popularity in the region, has gone bye-bye. All the apologies, distancing from Israel, the Cairo speech, the Istanbul speech, the engagements with Syria and Iran, the ban on using the word “Islamism,” and all the other apparatus of the new, non-strategic strategy have availed him—and U.S. interests—not.
Why? It’s very simple. On one hand, there are the enemies of America who don’t take that stance just because they thought George W. Bush was icky. They want--depending on who we are talking about--to conquer the Middle East, take over their own countries, establish a Caliphate, lord it over neighbors, wipe Israel off the map, turn women into chattel, get rid of the Christians, expel Western influence from the region, and/or transform their own countries into Islamist utopian dictatorships.
So why should we expect them to care whether the U.S. president is a nice guy who likes them and is really sorry for any time in the past when America actually did or tried to do something in the region? Indeed, Middle East dictators and revolutionaries also believe that nice guys finish last.
Then there are those who depend on the United States for their survival. You may think first of Israel but the list includes pretty much every Arabic-speaking government—more than a dozen—all of them except for Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and the Gaza Strip Islamist dictatorship of Hamas. They want a strong, determined U.S. policy that protects them from their radical enemies at home and abroad. If Washington can't provide that, these rulers seek their own deal with the revolutionaries in order to survive.
Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone—but does due to bad ideology and media coverage—that Obama isn’t popular. According to the latest Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project poll, he’s gone down in every Muslim-majority country. Only 17 percent of people in Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt have a positive view of the United States. In Egypt, America is less popular than it was when Bush was president.
And in some cases, Obama is less popular than the United States as a country! In Pakistan 17 percent like America, only 8 percent like Obama, despite billions in U.S. aid rained down unconditionally on that country. In Turkey, he leads the popularity of the United States by only 6 percent.
Of course, the low figures are being spun by administration supporters to suggest that if only the United States pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, abandoned Israel completely, and perhaps held its breath until turning blue, this would all change.
Meanwhile, despite all of Obama’s efforts to prove that he isn’t a leader and listens to everyone, most people in the world still think the United States is too unilateral in its actions. And they always will.
It is true America's unpopularity stems from its values. It is also true that America's unpopularity stems from its policies. But that doesn't mean the policies are "wrong." It also doesn't mean that changing these policies will make America popular.
First, the changes would have to be very extreme. Really and fully abandoning Israel, for example, so its people could be wiped out or repressed by anti-American forces.
Second, they would have to go against U.S. interests. Really and fully, perhaps, abandoning Arab regimes so that they are overthrown by anti-American Islamist revolutionaries.
Third, not everyone in the region wants the same thing. For example, U.S. support for Turkey's Islamist regime makes it very unpopular among large segments of the Turkish public, while if government policy were to oppose Egypt's regime as repressive it might alienate as many Egyptians as it would please.
That's why an obsessive hunt for popularity should never be the foundation of policy or strategy. In that framework, for example, a U.S. government might accept a terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, genocidal-oriented, client of Iran on the Mediterranean that would treat women like the Taliban and chase out Christians. Why? Because supporting sanctions to weaken that regime is unpopular in the Muslim-majority world! (And, yes, that's precisely what's happening now.)
A sensible public will stop saying that Obama has succeeded because he made America more popular in the world.
A sensible government would evaluate this situation and all the administration's failures, rethink its world view, and change course. Good news? Well, I said a “sensible government.”
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Defining the Mass Media World View: A Funny and Original Approach
By Barry Rubin
Martin Berman-Gorvine has come up with a clever, funny, and educational idea: take the New York Times and put together a dictionary of political terms using the way that it reports and analyzes the news. It's still growing but is worth a visit. And the funny thing--which also means the unfunny thing--is that his demonstration of the current dominant world view's absurdity is quite accurate.
It's called, "Secret Decoder Ring: Understanding How The New York Times Thinks About Israel," but it actually covers more issues as well.
Martin Berman-Gorvine has come up with a clever, funny, and educational idea: take the New York Times and put together a dictionary of political terms using the way that it reports and analyzes the news. It's still growing but is worth a visit. And the funny thing--which also means the unfunny thing--is that his demonstration of the current dominant world view's absurdity is quite accurate.
It's called, "Secret Decoder Ring: Understanding How The New York Times Thinks About Israel," but it actually covers more issues as well.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Two Articles--Turkey and Palestinian State-Building That Didn't Get into Daily Mailing
Note to subscribers. For some reason the following two articles did not go out to subscribers, so please feel free to read them directly through these links.
"I'm Looking and I Don't See Any Palestinian State-Building Going On"
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/im-looking-and-i-dont-see-any.html
"Who in Turkey Knows the Value of the Now-Dead Alliance with Israel? The Foreign and Defense Ministries"
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/who-in-turkey-knows-value-of-now-dead.html
"I'm Looking and I Don't See Any Palestinian State-Building Going On"
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/im-looking-and-i-dont-see-any.html
"Who in Turkey Knows the Value of the Now-Dead Alliance with Israel? The Foreign and Defense Ministries"
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/who-in-turkey-knows-value-of-now-dead.html
The Problem Isn't McChrystal's Bite But That McChrystal (On Administration, not Afghanistan) is Right
Please be subscriber 16,681. 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
There are two ways to look at General Stanley McChrystal’s interviews with Rolling Stone magazine: one is to focus on whether he should have said such things, the other is to analyze the important truths unveiled. Here, I’m going to examine the latter and, following my usual practice, I’ve actually read the article and base myself on the text.
But first, think about it: the general pointed out the near-disastrous situation with American leadership today. An increasing number of people know that he’s correct in his assessment. Isn’t that what’s really important?
Incidentally, the Obama Administration has been pretty tight regarding leaks, so there has been less news about infighting and incompetence than usual, not to mention that much of the media has protected it from exposure and criticism. So McChrystal hasn't just given us some blunt-worded reactions but an important peek into what's really happening.
On its cover, Rolling Stone calls him, “The Runaway General,” saying he is carefully watching “the wimps in the White House.” Coming from Rolling Stone, this phrase is presumably intended to mock the general. To anyone who cares about U.S. security, however, it rings true, a warning rather than a whining.
Thus, Michael Hastings has written an article significant not for back-biting gossip about who doesn’t like who but because it tells a lot about the looming tragedy on the ground in Afghanistan and the loony situation in the government in Washington.
Let me digress for a moment. At a conference in Europe, I heard a pompous Washington type who knew nothing about the military or Afghanistan give a wordy speech about how great things were going there and how the idea of democratizing and stabilizing that country was just a grand idea.
After he finished his boring oration, an Afghan friend of mine, a veteran of the U.S. military and years of analyzing that country for the U.S. government, stood up and tore him apart, citing corruption, incompetence, the reality of warlord rule, and lots more in the greatest detail. My friend certainly wants to see his country become a modern democratic state with stability and high living standards. But he had no illusions that this is going to happen, especially under American auspices.
One of the most devastating points in Hastings’ article has a huge significance the author himself doesn't seem to notice. In passing, he mocks the Afghan war effort as “the exclusive property of the United States” because all of its allies have opted out. Doesn’t this mean that President Barack Obama’s apparent popularity in Europe is meaningless? After all, Obama has made this his war and if he cannot get any ally to support the campaign that is a devastating outcome.
At the other extreme, the article's most noticed point is Hastings' quote from one of the general’s top aides saying that Obama seemed ill-prepared and disengaged when meeting with the generals. Does this surprise you? Do you doubt its truth? What, then, is the proper reaction, to feel that McChrystal and his staff have big mouths or to be worried about the tininess of the president’s experience, knowledge, interest, focus, and decisiveness?
Having said all that, I agree with McChrystal’s critics that his doctrine of coupling counterinsurgency with a U.S. military mission to rebuild the country and society is a terrible mistake. My view is that U.S. forces should focus on damaging the enemy on the battlefield to the maxium extent possible, train local forces, and withdraw as quickly as possible to let the Afghan army fight the war with a reasonable amount of American supplies and continued training.
Of course, the key problem is to define what “as quickly as possible” means. I’m sure McChrystal knows far more about military issues than I do but figure that I know more about Middle Eastern politics and societies than he does. The idea that the United States is going to remake a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is as foolish as the idea that the United States can moderate regimes like Syria, Iran, or Hamas. The former is the folly of part of the contemporary right, now embraced by the Obama Administration solely in Afghanistan; the latter is the folly of the left, embraced by the Obama Administration pretty much everywhere else.
My sympathy is with my Afghan friend and also with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Eikenberry, also a former general, who warns that the Afghan government is a weak reed likely to leave the United States holding the bag. In this respect, Afghanistan is a worse place than Iraq or even South Vietnam to wage the kind of war that Obama and McChrystal are fighting. Here, I agree with the author in what is, for me, the key sentence of the article:
“The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we’ve backed–a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about….”
Yet Obama’s Afghanistan strategy—march in the troops and then march them out again based on a timetable known to the Taliban—seems equally flawed and politically motivated. The key element should be arming, training, and bribing enough forces in Afghanistan to ensure that the other side doesn’t win.
The article argues that Obama accepted McChrystal’s basic strategy but that still the war is going badly. This lays responsibility for the failure with the White House. It also notes that policymaking on the war is chaotic, with no one in clear leadership and lots of people competing for power. This is not only an administration with a bad world view, inexperience plus ignorance, but also with a messed-up process. It is hard to imagine a recipe more likely to produce disaster.
Now, let me pose a suggestion. Read the article but pretend it is talking about President George W. Bush and his administration. What emerges then is not primarily a “scandal” about the general and his staff saying negative things about the civilian leadership but a warning that U.S. policy—directed by a shortsighted, inept, politically motivated chief executive--is misconceived, badly run, and heading into serious trouble.
This all reminds me of the surprise turnabout in an old Polish joke from the Communist period. During a period when the working class Solidarity movement was rebelling in Poland, the Soviet leader goes to Lenin’s tomb and communes with the dead leader. The reactionaries, he says, are rebelling against Communist rule and demonstrating in the streets. Lenin rises up and says, “Arm the workers!” In other words, those who supposedly should be backing a regime that proclaimed itself to be acting in their interests saw through the pretense and opposed the government.
In this case, the people who would be outraged against mismanagement, terrible decisions, and poor leadership by Bush should wake up and see that they are facing something just as bad and dangerous for America.
The problem isn’t that McChrystal and his entourage bad-mouthed Obama and his entourage, the problem is that they are correct in doing so.
PS: Aside from the points above, I find it an absolute disgrace that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs publicly and officially announced before McChrystal met with Obama that the general's firing was under consideration.
This was truly sleazy and unpresidential. Obama should have heard McChrystal's side of the story in a meeting. Afterward, he could have fired the general if he wanted to do. McChrystal took the hint and resigned, but couldn't that message have been conveyed privately? To announce this beforehand unnecessarily humiliated a man who has long and well served his country. Like the statements about BP--foot on neck--and "kicking ass" it was a display of pseudo-machismo by those whose timidity in foreign affairs has been obvious. How about a little toughness toward America's real enemies?
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
There are two ways to look at General Stanley McChrystal’s interviews with Rolling Stone magazine: one is to focus on whether he should have said such things, the other is to analyze the important truths unveiled. Here, I’m going to examine the latter and, following my usual practice, I’ve actually read the article and base myself on the text.
But first, think about it: the general pointed out the near-disastrous situation with American leadership today. An increasing number of people know that he’s correct in his assessment. Isn’t that what’s really important?
Incidentally, the Obama Administration has been pretty tight regarding leaks, so there has been less news about infighting and incompetence than usual, not to mention that much of the media has protected it from exposure and criticism. So McChrystal hasn't just given us some blunt-worded reactions but an important peek into what's really happening.
On its cover, Rolling Stone calls him, “The Runaway General,” saying he is carefully watching “the wimps in the White House.” Coming from Rolling Stone, this phrase is presumably intended to mock the general. To anyone who cares about U.S. security, however, it rings true, a warning rather than a whining.
Thus, Michael Hastings has written an article significant not for back-biting gossip about who doesn’t like who but because it tells a lot about the looming tragedy on the ground in Afghanistan and the loony situation in the government in Washington.
Let me digress for a moment. At a conference in Europe, I heard a pompous Washington type who knew nothing about the military or Afghanistan give a wordy speech about how great things were going there and how the idea of democratizing and stabilizing that country was just a grand idea.
After he finished his boring oration, an Afghan friend of mine, a veteran of the U.S. military and years of analyzing that country for the U.S. government, stood up and tore him apart, citing corruption, incompetence, the reality of warlord rule, and lots more in the greatest detail. My friend certainly wants to see his country become a modern democratic state with stability and high living standards. But he had no illusions that this is going to happen, especially under American auspices.
One of the most devastating points in Hastings’ article has a huge significance the author himself doesn't seem to notice. In passing, he mocks the Afghan war effort as “the exclusive property of the United States” because all of its allies have opted out. Doesn’t this mean that President Barack Obama’s apparent popularity in Europe is meaningless? After all, Obama has made this his war and if he cannot get any ally to support the campaign that is a devastating outcome.
At the other extreme, the article's most noticed point is Hastings' quote from one of the general’s top aides saying that Obama seemed ill-prepared and disengaged when meeting with the generals. Does this surprise you? Do you doubt its truth? What, then, is the proper reaction, to feel that McChrystal and his staff have big mouths or to be worried about the tininess of the president’s experience, knowledge, interest, focus, and decisiveness?
Having said all that, I agree with McChrystal’s critics that his doctrine of coupling counterinsurgency with a U.S. military mission to rebuild the country and society is a terrible mistake. My view is that U.S. forces should focus on damaging the enemy on the battlefield to the maxium extent possible, train local forces, and withdraw as quickly as possible to let the Afghan army fight the war with a reasonable amount of American supplies and continued training.
Of course, the key problem is to define what “as quickly as possible” means. I’m sure McChrystal knows far more about military issues than I do but figure that I know more about Middle Eastern politics and societies than he does. The idea that the United States is going to remake a country like Iraq or Afghanistan is as foolish as the idea that the United States can moderate regimes like Syria, Iran, or Hamas. The former is the folly of part of the contemporary right, now embraced by the Obama Administration solely in Afghanistan; the latter is the folly of the left, embraced by the Obama Administration pretty much everywhere else.
My sympathy is with my Afghan friend and also with U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Eikenberry, also a former general, who warns that the Afghan government is a weak reed likely to leave the United States holding the bag. In this respect, Afghanistan is a worse place than Iraq or even South Vietnam to wage the kind of war that Obama and McChrystal are fighting. Here, I agree with the author in what is, for me, the key sentence of the article:
“The need to build a credible government puts us at the mercy of whatever tin-pot leader we’ve backed–a danger that Eikenberry explicitly warned about….”
Yet Obama’s Afghanistan strategy—march in the troops and then march them out again based on a timetable known to the Taliban—seems equally flawed and politically motivated. The key element should be arming, training, and bribing enough forces in Afghanistan to ensure that the other side doesn’t win.
The article argues that Obama accepted McChrystal’s basic strategy but that still the war is going badly. This lays responsibility for the failure with the White House. It also notes that policymaking on the war is chaotic, with no one in clear leadership and lots of people competing for power. This is not only an administration with a bad world view, inexperience plus ignorance, but also with a messed-up process. It is hard to imagine a recipe more likely to produce disaster.
Now, let me pose a suggestion. Read the article but pretend it is talking about President George W. Bush and his administration. What emerges then is not primarily a “scandal” about the general and his staff saying negative things about the civilian leadership but a warning that U.S. policy—directed by a shortsighted, inept, politically motivated chief executive--is misconceived, badly run, and heading into serious trouble.
This all reminds me of the surprise turnabout in an old Polish joke from the Communist period. During a period when the working class Solidarity movement was rebelling in Poland, the Soviet leader goes to Lenin’s tomb and communes with the dead leader. The reactionaries, he says, are rebelling against Communist rule and demonstrating in the streets. Lenin rises up and says, “Arm the workers!” In other words, those who supposedly should be backing a regime that proclaimed itself to be acting in their interests saw through the pretense and opposed the government.
In this case, the people who would be outraged against mismanagement, terrible decisions, and poor leadership by Bush should wake up and see that they are facing something just as bad and dangerous for America.
The problem isn’t that McChrystal and his entourage bad-mouthed Obama and his entourage, the problem is that they are correct in doing so.
PS: Aside from the points above, I find it an absolute disgrace that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs publicly and officially announced before McChrystal met with Obama that the general's firing was under consideration.
This was truly sleazy and unpresidential. Obama should have heard McChrystal's side of the story in a meeting. Afterward, he could have fired the general if he wanted to do. McChrystal took the hint and resigned, but couldn't that message have been conveyed privately? To announce this beforehand unnecessarily humiliated a man who has long and well served his country. Like the statements about BP--foot on neck--and "kicking ass" it was a display of pseudo-machismo by those whose timidity in foreign affairs has been obvious. How about a little toughness toward America's real enemies?
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.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Who in Turkey Knows the Value of the Now-Dead Alliance with Israel? The Foreign and Defense Ministries
By Barry Rubin
Kurdish terrorists attacking Turkey? The military uses drones made in Israel to defend the country.
As part of its demagogic assault on Israel, the Islamist regime has now claimed that Israel is fomenting a coup within Turkey. I can state for a fact that this isn’t true. There will be no coup for several reasons: the armed forces are intimidated by verbal attacks and arrests, its leaders don’t want to set off a civil war, and they know that no Western government—and especially the United States—would support them.
What’s really happening is a coup against the armed forces through lies, arrests, and political pressure by the Islamist regime. But that doesn’t mean the generals and soldiers are happy with the destruction of the republic created by Kemal Ataturk and of Turkish democracy in general.
Another discontented institution the regime wants to crush is the Foreign Ministry. Now several retired ambassadors have publicly complained about how demagogue-in-chief Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is pursuing against them. They watch in sadness as the Islamist regime throws away decades’-old connections with the West in pursuit of his effort to be Iran’s number-one ally.
“Foreign policy is a long-term and serious job,” reads the ambassadors’ statement. ” It’s a serious pursuit that requires knowledge, foresight and calm analytical abilities.”
In an oblique reference to the regime’s anti-Israel policy, the ambassadors stated:
“Foreign policy isn’t about bravery and adventurism. Those who claim to know history well need to remember the misfortunes brought to our country because of adventurous and imaginative cheap hopes`….The penalty for such free heroic acts being paid with the lives of our innocent people is a source of distress,”
Incidentally, it is well known in Turkey that the current foreign minister—who is feted in the West for his English-language speeches about Turkey being everyone’s friend—was put into place to capture the Foreign Ministry for the Islamists. He is author of a book about how Turkey should steer toward the Islamic world. Guess what? It’s only available in Turkish and finding a copy nowadays is tough. Someone should translate that work.
I’m not going to respond to all the terrible articles being written about Turkey lately but I will just remark that in more than 30 years I have never seen so much nonsense written about any subject proportionately—and that includes the Arab-Israeli conflict—as has been written about Turkey during the last month. Writers have sought every explanation except the correct one: The current regime is anti-Western and anti-Israel not due to recent events but to its ideology and what it wants to do to its own country.
Kurdish terrorists attacking Turkey? The military uses drones made in Israel to defend the country.
As part of its demagogic assault on Israel, the Islamist regime has now claimed that Israel is fomenting a coup within Turkey. I can state for a fact that this isn’t true. There will be no coup for several reasons: the armed forces are intimidated by verbal attacks and arrests, its leaders don’t want to set off a civil war, and they know that no Western government—and especially the United States—would support them.
What’s really happening is a coup against the armed forces through lies, arrests, and political pressure by the Islamist regime. But that doesn’t mean the generals and soldiers are happy with the destruction of the republic created by Kemal Ataturk and of Turkish democracy in general.
Another discontented institution the regime wants to crush is the Foreign Ministry. Now several retired ambassadors have publicly complained about how demagogue-in-chief Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is pursuing against them. They watch in sadness as the Islamist regime throws away decades’-old connections with the West in pursuit of his effort to be Iran’s number-one ally.
“Foreign policy is a long-term and serious job,” reads the ambassadors’ statement. ” It’s a serious pursuit that requires knowledge, foresight and calm analytical abilities.”
In an oblique reference to the regime’s anti-Israel policy, the ambassadors stated:
“Foreign policy isn’t about bravery and adventurism. Those who claim to know history well need to remember the misfortunes brought to our country because of adventurous and imaginative cheap hopes`….The penalty for such free heroic acts being paid with the lives of our innocent people is a source of distress,”
Incidentally, it is well known in Turkey that the current foreign minister—who is feted in the West for his English-language speeches about Turkey being everyone’s friend—was put into place to capture the Foreign Ministry for the Islamists. He is author of a book about how Turkey should steer toward the Islamic world. Guess what? It’s only available in Turkish and finding a copy nowadays is tough. Someone should translate that work.
I’m not going to respond to all the terrible articles being written about Turkey lately but I will just remark that in more than 30 years I have never seen so much nonsense written about any subject proportionately—and that includes the Arab-Israeli conflict—as has been written about Turkey during the last month. Writers have sought every explanation except the correct one: The current regime is anti-Western and anti-Israel not due to recent events but to its ideology and what it wants to do to its own country.
I'm Looking and I Don't See Any Palestinian State-Building Going On
Please 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
I read an article on Foreign Policy blog which, like many things I see on the Middle East, convinces me of the precise opposite conclusion to what the author wants me to think. The article, by Hussein Ibish, a Palestinian activist in the United States, is entitled: "While No One's Looking, the Palestinians Are Building a State: Now it's time for the rest of the world to pitch in. "
Well, I'm looking and I don't see any Palestinian state-building going on. Yes, there is some improvement in the West Bank security forces, including U.S. training, but the changes are not enormous. And at any moment, these forces could launch a war on Israel or start fighting each other. Yes, there is some economic improvement happening but it's based on foreign aid money and much of it is unproductive (i.e., real estate and housing speculation). And again, it could be blown up any moment in a new Palestinian-Israeli or Fatah-Hamas war or just major instability.
A more accurate title for this article would be: The Rest of the World has Pitched in, Paid Lots of Money, and the Palestinians Still Aren't Building a State!" The article provides not a single example of any material action being done to create strong institutions or do anything else that a state requires. Indeed, the only actual action was the passing of a resolution saying that the Palestinian Authority is building a state.
Here's the link but if I were you I wouldn't waste the time on it. Incidentally, his claim that half the PA budget comes from Palestinian taxation is totally ridiculous. But then any nonsense will do to drop on the West. The Western journalistic and intellectual discussion today is all too often like restaurant patrons who will gobble up offal gladly and proclaim it haute cuisine.
What's happening, though, and that's why this article is of some significance, is that the PA is trying to build a foundation for a unilateral declaration of independence in a year or two. That doesn't mean it will ever happen but rather than negotiate with Israel, a process requiring compromises and concessions, the PA prefers to have the world recognize it as a state without having to do anything: end the conflict, agree to resettle Palestinian refugees in Palestine, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, provide Israel with security guarantees, and so on.
Remember that the Palestinian Authority originated about 17 years ago. That means babies born then are now adults and the PA has done remarkably little to prepare for stable and well-governed statehood, not to mention losing the Gaza Strip to Hamas. And how can places like Foreign Policy blog run articles without a single real argument to prove its thesis?
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
I read an article on Foreign Policy blog which, like many things I see on the Middle East, convinces me of the precise opposite conclusion to what the author wants me to think. The article, by Hussein Ibish, a Palestinian activist in the United States, is entitled: "While No One's Looking, the Palestinians Are Building a State: Now it's time for the rest of the world to pitch in. "
Well, I'm looking and I don't see any Palestinian state-building going on. Yes, there is some improvement in the West Bank security forces, including U.S. training, but the changes are not enormous. And at any moment, these forces could launch a war on Israel or start fighting each other. Yes, there is some economic improvement happening but it's based on foreign aid money and much of it is unproductive (i.e., real estate and housing speculation). And again, it could be blown up any moment in a new Palestinian-Israeli or Fatah-Hamas war or just major instability.
A more accurate title for this article would be: The Rest of the World has Pitched in, Paid Lots of Money, and the Palestinians Still Aren't Building a State!" The article provides not a single example of any material action being done to create strong institutions or do anything else that a state requires. Indeed, the only actual action was the passing of a resolution saying that the Palestinian Authority is building a state.
Here's the link but if I were you I wouldn't waste the time on it. Incidentally, his claim that half the PA budget comes from Palestinian taxation is totally ridiculous. But then any nonsense will do to drop on the West. The Western journalistic and intellectual discussion today is all too often like restaurant patrons who will gobble up offal gladly and proclaim it haute cuisine.
What's happening, though, and that's why this article is of some significance, is that the PA is trying to build a foundation for a unilateral declaration of independence in a year or two. That doesn't mean it will ever happen but rather than negotiate with Israel, a process requiring compromises and concessions, the PA prefers to have the world recognize it as a state without having to do anything: end the conflict, agree to resettle Palestinian refugees in Palestine, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, provide Israel with security guarantees, and so on.
Remember that the Palestinian Authority originated about 17 years ago. That means babies born then are now adults and the PA has done remarkably little to prepare for stable and well-governed statehood, not to mention losing the Gaza Strip to Hamas. And how can places like Foreign Policy blog run articles without a single real argument to prove its thesis?
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.
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.