This article was published in PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
It is amazing what nonsense appears in the mass media. Consider the following paragraph from a Washington Post story:
“A decade ago, the Middle East might have responded to the killing of Osama bin Laden with fury at the United States. But with the region convulsed by mostly peaceful popular revolutions, the response to his death has been muted, another signal that the old Arab order is being swept away.”
So what does this say? Ten years ago, there would have been fury in the Middle East about bin Laden’s killing but now, with the democracy movement, that’s no longer true.
Two governments have been overthrown in the Middle East, Egypt and Tunisia. These regimes were repressing Islamists. They would have cheered bin Laden’s death. So would every other government in the region. Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Syria was no fan of bin Laden, either, at least not publicly. Either these governments were anti-Islamist or, in Iran’s case, were a different kind of Islamist.
The same applies to the Islamist movements. The Muslim Brotherhood held no brief for bin Laden himself, though it supported the insurgent movement in Iraq that was led by al-Qaida. Hamas and Hizballah were not big supporters either. As a Shia group, Hizballah would not have mourned bin Laden, whose movement hated Shia Muslims. True, bin Laden—based on his recent September 11 success—was higher in the public opinion polls. But the few pro-bin Laden demonstrations would have been repressed by the rulers.
In fact, the situation was the precise opposite. Many Islamist groups were angry at bin Laden after September 11 just as an organized crime family would be outraged by some new gang who shot up the town and brought a police crackdown. As a result of the post-September 11 crackdown, Islamist agents were deported from Europe and arrested at home.
Every government could not only suppress their own Islamists with Western backing but also go after non-Islamist dissidents as well by portraying them as Islamist terrorists. Even Syria, for example, blamed internal dissent on al-Qaida and bragged about helping the United States round up a dangerous al-Qaida man.
Now, contrast this with the present-day era of upheavals. The government of the Gaza Strip and a key part of the Palestinian Authority condemned the killing and came out on bin Laden’s side. So did the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the single most powerful political force in the country whose influence has been expanded due to U.S. policy.
The old Arab order—except in Syria—was anti-Islamist! Removing it gives a blessed chance for democracy but it also provides an equal or better chance for radical Islamist takeovers. Each country is a different story. But if the Western governments don’t notice the problem how is it going to be solved?
An example. The British government heartily endorsed the Fatah-Hamas cooperation agreement. It’s not every day that America’s oldest and strongest ally cheers a coalition agreement that brings a genocidal, antisemitic, terrorist-supporting, client of Iran into a regime that survives on Western financial subsidies. But the fact that London took this action only hours after the highest Hamas political figure—certain to be playing a major role in any coalition government—endorsed Usama bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks.
Showing posts with label UK policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Analyzing British Jews' Views: The Opposite of What's Suggested
Please be subscriber 17,003. Put your email address in upper right-hand box of the page.
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
There is an interesting recent poll of Jews in the United Kingdom but an article about the poll is equally interesting. I’m not writing to criticize Jonathan Boyd’s analysis but to point out some of the assumptions it reveals. [No need to follow the link as I quote practically the entire text.]
His article’s theme is clear. Entitled, “The Writing on the Wall,” (suggesting that it is the beginning of the end for British Jewish support of Israel) the idea is that while the poll results show support for Israel it also reveals disquieting trends. My response is that all of the alleged contradictions of what British Jews are in fact not contradictions at all, and an analysis shows their support for Israel is even stronger than it seems.
Here are two aspects to keep in mind:
--Jews should not have to think of Israel as perfect in order to support it. If on one hand the discovery that Israel makes mistakes or has imperfections drives some Jews on the left to reject it completely (Israel is horrible because it doesn't give the Palestinians everything they demand), those on the right often try too hard to prove Israel is perfect or demand that it fulfill their political standpoint regardless of Israel’s own interests (Israel is falling apart because it pulled out of the Gaza Strip or supports compromises).
--Most of their views are in the context of Israel’s own political spectrum of debate, which the author does suggest, or even policies. In this respect, thinking otherwise shows outdated or mistaken concepts of Israel that often surface in attacks on the country. There are simply ludicrous articles written, often in prestigious publications, by those who only identify as Jews when criticizing Israel and make the silliest errors about analyzing the country.
Boyd notes:
“90 percent of Jews in Britain believe that Israel is `the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people,’ 82% consider it to play an important and even central role in their Jewish identities and 72% categorize themselves as Zionists, in contrast to only 21% who do not. Furthermore, an estimated 95% of Jews in Britain have visited Israel at least once, 77% agree that Jews have `a special responsibility to support Israel’ and 87% agree that Jews are responsible for ensuring `the survival of Israel.’”
Let’s also remember that these people are under an around-the-clock barrage of anti-Israel opinion and information from the British media, universities, and other institutions, which makes their steadfastness all the more remarkable.
“The dovishness of the community comes across very clearly: 67% favor giving up territory for peace; 74% are opposed to the expansion of existing settlements in the West Bank and, perhaps most strikingly, 52% think that Israel `should negotiate with Hamas in its efforts to achieve peace.’”
I don’t think the first two points are particularly dovish as such. Israelis overwhelmingly favor giving up territory IF that would secure real and lasting peace. As for expanding settlements, it has been Israeli policy not to do so since…1993. That’s 17 years ago. So supporting that position is not exactly anti-Israeli, indeed Benjamin Netanyahu accepted it back in 1996. I admit the point about Hamas is shocking but perhaps they mean if it ever moderates (don’t hold your breath).
The article continues:
“However, at the same time, the hawkishness of the community is also apparent: 72% consider the separation fence/security barrier `vital for Israel’s security’ and the same percentage viewed Operation Cast Lead as `a legitimate act of self-defense. Furthermore, fully 87% of respondents believe that “Iran represents a threat to Israel’s existence.”
Those three points aren’t hawkishness, that’s common sense. To have a barrier to keep out terrorists, who killed hundreds of people before it was built and literally none since within Israel’s borders seems a rather proven policy. To attack the Gaza Strip when Hamas had declared the ceasefire ended and was firing scores of rockets appears to make sense. And to think that Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence cannot be described as “hawkish” but as sane.
The article goes on:
“The apparent paradox captures perfectly the nature of Israel’s ongoing dilemma. The peace versus security equation needs to be balanced on a daily basis; most overtures toward peace involve taking risks on security, and most clampdowns on security involve damaging prospects for peace. What Jews in Britain are saying – in much the same way as Israelis are saying – is that we want both.”
Makes sense to me. Then why does he continue:
“My personal view is that there are signs of considerable disquiet in the findings, which indicate that all is not quite as rosy as some would like to believe.
“Consider the following. In our investigation of the state of Israeli society, 67% agree that there is `too much corruption in Israel’s political system.’ Approximately six out of 10 believe that both Jewish and non-Jewish minorities `suffer from discrimination.’ Three-quarters think that `Orthodox Judaism has too much influence in Israel’s society’ and that includes, surprisingly perhaps, almost half of those who self-define as `religious’”
Well, Israel’s political system is too corrupt and there is certainly room for improvement but you should hear what Israelis say about these things. Why should this turn them against Israel? Do British people turn against their country—or you could mention any other place in the world—because it has not achieved full justice or has corruption?
But the article doesn’t see it that way:
“Each of these findings suggests that a majority of Jews in Britain is looking at these aspects of Israeli society and struggling in some way to reconcile the realities they see with the values they believe ought to underpin a Jewish state. Perhaps it is the allegations against Ehud Olmert or Moshe Katsav, perhaps it is the growing alienation of Arab Israelis, perhaps it is the stranglehold Orthodox authorities have over the conversion process, but whatever the reason, it is clear that these types of difficult issues are leading some Jews in Britain to view Israel through quite critical eyes.”
Yet these problems and complaints don’t mean that those values aren’t in place. Orthodox authorities only have a stranglehold over conversion within Israel, which does recognize conversion abroad. Perhaps that is a significant point to explain. Even if one favors allowing Reform and Conservative rabbis within Israel to do conversions, upholding Jewish law as it has existed for many centuries should not be described as some shocking misplacement of values.
As for Arab Israelis, the unspoken assumption here is that they are being “alienated” because they aren’t given enough concessions and would be perfectly happy if they were given more, an interesting question for discussion. I wonder what percentage of these people would, even in the midst of its Politically Correct, multicultural, sneezing-at the-wrong-time-is-an-act-of-racism phase?
There’s more. A clear majority of British Jews considers Israel to be “an occupying power in the West Bank.” Forty percent do not think that control of the West Bank is vital for security; 43% do not believe that Israel has “little or no choice in most of the military action it takes.”
And one-third thinks that Israel holds either as much responsibility – or even more responsibility – for the failures of the peace process than its neighbors.
There’s more. A clear majority of British Jews considers Israel to be “an occupying power in the West Bank.” Forty percent do not think that control of the West Bank is vital for security; 43% do not believe that Israel has “little or no choice in most of the military action it takes.”
And one-third thinks that Israel holds either as much responsibility – or even more responsibility – for the failures of the peace process than its neighbors.
Again, I don’t find this shocking. Since Israel is willing to give up almost all of the West Bank in exchange for peace, it is occupying the territory and is thus stating that controlling the West Bank might not be vital for Israeli security, as long as there is a full peace settlement. And of course Israel has a choice in taking military action. For example, it did not have to attack in 2006 even though Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped. It decided to do so.
So there is nothing shocking in these conclusions. All they prove, at most, is that British Jews aren’t far to the right or far to the left of mainstream Israelis.
I thus totally disagree with the article’s conclusion:
“But below the surface, there is evidence to suggest that a significant number of people are starting to ask some probing questions….We should not rule out the possibility that the currently strong foundations might begin to crumble in the years to come. Right now, Jews in Britain remain deeply tied to Israel; the future, however, looks far less certain.”
Well, if it is uncertain it won’t be because they changed their minds but because they have either left Britain altogether or are too intimidated to speak. The fact that Jews are defying a massive tidal wave of elite opinion, university training, and media slander shows the foundations of their loyalty are far from crumbling.
If Jews don’t regard Israel as perfect, that’s a good thing. The my-country-only-if-perfect argument is dangerous because for those who believe it the appearance of flaws may trigger a total rejection. They are simply recognizing, as I have remarked elsewhere, that Israel is in many ways a “normal” country. And in these days of demonization, lies, and slanders that’s just fine.
Incidentally, to see what British Jews have to face, here's Melanie Phillips' exposure of how British newspapers distorted Israeli President Shimon Peres's remarks. There are between one and four such stories every day in the UK.
Incidentally, to see what British Jews have to face, here's Melanie Phillips' exposure of how British newspapers distorted Israeli President Shimon Peres's remarks. There are between one and four such stories every day in the UK.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study: UK PM in Turkey
Please be subscriber 16,983. 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.
Note: This article was published in PajamasMedia. If you reprint please use my title but link and give credit to them. For my response to Andrew Sullivan's dishonest attack on the article see here.
By Barry Rubin
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.
It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.
Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you, here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.
Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.
Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.
What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?
In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won’t be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.
Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron’s pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime’s subversion of Turkish democracy.
Cameron began by saying:
“I’ve come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.”
Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: “I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries.” In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn't need Britain at all.
And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West's radical Islamist enemies.
And here it is again:
“People ask me why [I’m visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I’ll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy.” So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.
According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:
“Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms – whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey’s unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security.”
Look, you don’t go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don’t tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that’s true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its “Eastern” enemies—as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000—or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.
He continues:
“Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?”
Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds:
“Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can’t hope to have. So I’ve come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.”
Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime’s behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year’s elections:
Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!
Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime’s behavior. He could have said:
While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if…. Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.
But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain’s closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:
“The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.”
All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!
He also complains of those who “see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don’t get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both.”
But he doesn’t comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk.
If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic.
Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:
“Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.
“Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.
“But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.”
In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas’s behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime's pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron’s part.
And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn't want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn't Cameron know this?
I don’t want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there’s no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime’s manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents.
He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:
“Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey’s help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.
“We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see Iran move in the right direction.”
That meeting is a conference of Iran’s supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey’s opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar’s worldview: “We need Turkey’s help....” Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help?
This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran.
Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That's how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.
PS: If you are interested in a good critique of this speech and Cameron's following speech in India from the point of view of speechmaking technique see here.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
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.
Note: This article was published in PajamasMedia. If you reprint please use my title but link and give credit to them. For my response to Andrew Sullivan's dishonest attack on the article see here.
By Barry Rubin
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.
It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.
Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you, here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.
Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.
Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.
What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?
In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won’t be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.
Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron’s pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime’s subversion of Turkish democracy.
Cameron began by saying:
“I’ve come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.”
Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: “I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries.” In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn't need Britain at all.
And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West's radical Islamist enemies.
And here it is again:
“People ask me why [I’m visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I’ll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy.” So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.
According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:
“Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms – whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey’s unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security.”
Look, you don’t go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don’t tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that’s true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its “Eastern” enemies—as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000—or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.
He continues:
“Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?”
Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds:
“Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can’t hope to have. So I’ve come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.”
Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime’s behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year’s elections:
Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!
Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime’s behavior. He could have said:
While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if…. Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.
But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain’s closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:
“The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.”
All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!
He also complains of those who “see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don’t get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both.”
But he doesn’t comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk.
If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic.
Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:
“Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.
“Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.
“But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.”
In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas’s behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime's pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron’s part.
And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn't want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn't Cameron know this?
I don’t want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there’s no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime’s manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents.
He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:
“Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey’s help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.
“We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see Iran move in the right direction.”
That meeting is a conference of Iran’s supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey’s opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar’s worldview: “We need Turkey’s help....” Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help?
This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran.
Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That's how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.
PS: If you are interested in a good critique of this speech and Cameron's following speech in India from the point of view of speechmaking technique see here.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Bad News: "peace process," UK, Hamas, Turkey; Good News: Boycotts Fail; U.S. public opinion; True News: Dead Turkish Flotilla Attackers Sought Martyrdom
Please be subscriber 16,916. 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
If you have any belief that there is going to be Israel-Palestinian peace in the near future or that the Palestinian public has been in any way prepared for a two-state solution by its leadership here's a simple point that proves the contrary.
The year is 2010. A child born on the day the Oslo agreement, the basis for a supposed peace, was agreed to by Israel and the PLO would soon be celebrating his 18th birthday and be an adult. The "peace process," however, is still in diapers. Yet according to the latest Palestinian poll, 82 percent of West Bank residents won't give up the demand that any peace agreement must let all Palestinians who were refugees in 1948 or their descendents return to live in what is now Israel. In fact, even if compensated for lost property they still demand repatriation. The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to oppose this position, which makes peace with Israel impossible, on the contrary it has consistently supported the idea.
This has always been a peculiar concept. If Palestinians were nationalist they would not go and live in another, non-Palestinian and even non-Arab and non-Muslim country. The point of this demand is, of course, to eliminate Israel's existence over time. The amount of bloodshed that would ensue if this idea was implemented would be catastrophic.
And don't get me started on the ridiculousness of trying to make peace with a revolutionary Islamist, genocide-seeking Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip.
Remember, though, that the American people--and others in the West--are smarter than much of their elites. The respected Gallup poll last February, at a time when President Obama was evincing anger at Israel, shows that 63 percent of Americans support Israel as compared to only 15 percent backing the Palestinians. This is a record, except for a short period in 1991 when Israel was under Scud attack and the PLO was siding with a country, Iraq, that U.S. forces were fighting.
Asked if they were favorable toward Israel generally, 67 percent of Americans said "yes," one of the highest scores of all countries.
Will peace some day come to the Middle East? Of the respondents, 67 percent said "doubtful" and 30 percent said "there will come a time.” Among Republicans only 25 percent said there would be peace some day while the number was 39 percent, still quite low, among Democrats. So the claims of the media, academics, and government officials have not persuaded people. (And the question underestimated this factor since "there will come a time" could mean in 50 years.)
By the way, it is being said that U.S.-Israeli security ties are stronger than ever before now under the Obama Administration. This is a bit misleading since many of the programs cited were agreed to under the preceding president. I would phrase it in this way: they are as strong as they have ever been. Here's a detailed account: Glenn Kessler, "U.S.-Israeli security ties grow amid diplomatic disputes," Washington Post, July 16, 2010.
Unfortunately, that's just in the United States though--forgive me for saying this--that's the place that counts most. Professor Richard Landes has a portrait of the UK today, however, that is profoundly disturbing, and I'm told by people there is pretty accurate, about just how bad things have become.
Since presumably after reading this you will be quite depressed, for encouragement read a poll of British Jews which shows overwhelming support among them for Israel. Then to follow that up read Robert Fulford's view that all the anti-Israel boycott and disinvestment movements have produced close to zero material effect in practice (though obviously the propaganda value is something else).
Another interesting new report is this one showing how at least seven and probably all nine of those killed had previously declared their desire to become martyrs in the operation and at least eight of them were members of the radical Islamist IHH group which had previously sent armed fighters to other countries and functions largely as a support group for Hamas. Thus, these were not innocent humanitarian-oriented bystanders but among those who launched an attack on Israeli soldiers and kidnapped three of them.
The U.S. government is now thinking of designated the IHH main group in Turkey as a terrorist group. But there's a problem here: the IHH is very close to the Turkish regime so if the IHH is terrorist than the Turkish Islamist regime is sponsoring a terrorist group, right? Presumably we won't hear more about any classification of the IHH as terrorist no matter how much evidence there is. Watch this one.
Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post, whose work is awesome in part because it is so vastly superior to everyone else doing the Palestinian beat, writes:
"In recent weeks Hamas leaders are beginning to show signs of optimism. Since the late May incident involving the Turkish flotilla of aid ships, some Americans and Europeans have been campaigning in favor of engaging Hamas.
"Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists around the world all have their eyes set on the Gaza Strip. They are waiting to see if Hamas manages to win recognition of the international community.
"A victory for Hamas is a victory for Islamic fundamentalists not only in Gaza, but in many different places, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Iraq.... It does not seem that Hamas has any incentive to change its position amid increasing calls in the West to "break" the isolation of the radical Islamist movement. On the contrary, talk in the West about the need to launch dialogue with Hamas has only served to toughen their stance....
"Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept the three conditions imposed by the Quartet members, but it has now toughened its position on the issue of reconciliation with Fatah...."
Among the latest members of the pro-Hamas camp are Muhammad el-Baradei, "reformist" candidate for the presidency of Egypt. He says that if he is elected he will accept Hamas's rule of the Gaza Strip and open the border completely to them. That's quite a reform.
Speaking of aggressive Islamism, here's the latest in Gareth Jenkins remarkable and scholarly analysis of how the Turkish Islamist regime uses false conspiracy charges to arrest and intimidate opponents. This story is either not covered at all in the West or the media actually swallows the repressive regime propaganda that it is arresting real conspirators! Jenkins has actually read the charges and finds them ridiculous.
I think there's a pattern here: the exact opposite to the one believed in the West.
Remember Fatah, the group controlling the Palestinian Authority (PA)? Well it has come out against direct negotiations with Israel. But wait! Isn't President Obama always saying the PA is really moderate and wants peace? Well, I keep saying that Fatah is still controlled by radicals who are far from ready for a peace agreement with Israel. Who are you going to believe?
And what happens when the PA, including Mahmoud Abbas himself, openly opposes the direct talks that Obama wants? Does there come a point when the U.S. government realizes that its big problem is the PA and not Israel?
Speaking of people throwing a pie in the face of Obama and dissing [American slang for disrespecting] U.S. interests, how about the open Russian declaration that it is going to help Iran get around sanctions? This follows U.S. government hints that since Russia voted for the UN sanctions it won't actually be expected to apply them.
Do you know what this means? The sanctions are not so much a hurt-Iran-to-discourage-nuclear weapons plan but a make-lots-of-money-for-Russia-by driving-out-Western-dealings-with-Iran-so Moscow-can-get-the-business.
At the same time, despite these shortcomings, the Obama Administration should get credit for the following: keeping strong U.S.-Israel security ties, working hard now on anti-Iran sanctions (though Congress deserves much of the credit), and beginning to lay the groundwork for containing Iran.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
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
If you have any belief that there is going to be Israel-Palestinian peace in the near future or that the Palestinian public has been in any way prepared for a two-state solution by its leadership here's a simple point that proves the contrary.
The year is 2010. A child born on the day the Oslo agreement, the basis for a supposed peace, was agreed to by Israel and the PLO would soon be celebrating his 18th birthday and be an adult. The "peace process," however, is still in diapers. Yet according to the latest Palestinian poll, 82 percent of West Bank residents won't give up the demand that any peace agreement must let all Palestinians who were refugees in 1948 or their descendents return to live in what is now Israel. In fact, even if compensated for lost property they still demand repatriation. The Palestinian Authority has done nothing to oppose this position, which makes peace with Israel impossible, on the contrary it has consistently supported the idea.
This has always been a peculiar concept. If Palestinians were nationalist they would not go and live in another, non-Palestinian and even non-Arab and non-Muslim country. The point of this demand is, of course, to eliminate Israel's existence over time. The amount of bloodshed that would ensue if this idea was implemented would be catastrophic.
And don't get me started on the ridiculousness of trying to make peace with a revolutionary Islamist, genocide-seeking Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip.
Remember, though, that the American people--and others in the West--are smarter than much of their elites. The respected Gallup poll last February, at a time when President Obama was evincing anger at Israel, shows that 63 percent of Americans support Israel as compared to only 15 percent backing the Palestinians. This is a record, except for a short period in 1991 when Israel was under Scud attack and the PLO was siding with a country, Iraq, that U.S. forces were fighting.
Asked if they were favorable toward Israel generally, 67 percent of Americans said "yes," one of the highest scores of all countries.
Will peace some day come to the Middle East? Of the respondents, 67 percent said "doubtful" and 30 percent said "there will come a time.” Among Republicans only 25 percent said there would be peace some day while the number was 39 percent, still quite low, among Democrats. So the claims of the media, academics, and government officials have not persuaded people. (And the question underestimated this factor since "there will come a time" could mean in 50 years.)
By the way, it is being said that U.S.-Israeli security ties are stronger than ever before now under the Obama Administration. This is a bit misleading since many of the programs cited were agreed to under the preceding president. I would phrase it in this way: they are as strong as they have ever been. Here's a detailed account: Glenn Kessler, "U.S.-Israeli security ties grow amid diplomatic disputes," Washington Post, July 16, 2010.
Unfortunately, that's just in the United States though--forgive me for saying this--that's the place that counts most. Professor Richard Landes has a portrait of the UK today, however, that is profoundly disturbing, and I'm told by people there is pretty accurate, about just how bad things have become.
Since presumably after reading this you will be quite depressed, for encouragement read a poll of British Jews which shows overwhelming support among them for Israel. Then to follow that up read Robert Fulford's view that all the anti-Israel boycott and disinvestment movements have produced close to zero material effect in practice (though obviously the propaganda value is something else).
Another interesting new report is this one showing how at least seven and probably all nine of those killed had previously declared their desire to become martyrs in the operation and at least eight of them were members of the radical Islamist IHH group which had previously sent armed fighters to other countries and functions largely as a support group for Hamas. Thus, these were not innocent humanitarian-oriented bystanders but among those who launched an attack on Israeli soldiers and kidnapped three of them.
The U.S. government is now thinking of designated the IHH main group in Turkey as a terrorist group. But there's a problem here: the IHH is very close to the Turkish regime so if the IHH is terrorist than the Turkish Islamist regime is sponsoring a terrorist group, right? Presumably we won't hear more about any classification of the IHH as terrorist no matter how much evidence there is. Watch this one.
Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post, whose work is awesome in part because it is so vastly superior to everyone else doing the Palestinian beat, writes:
"In recent weeks Hamas leaders are beginning to show signs of optimism. Since the late May incident involving the Turkish flotilla of aid ships, some Americans and Europeans have been campaigning in favor of engaging Hamas.
"Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists around the world all have their eyes set on the Gaza Strip. They are waiting to see if Hamas manages to win recognition of the international community.
"A victory for Hamas is a victory for Islamic fundamentalists not only in Gaza, but in many different places, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Iraq.... It does not seem that Hamas has any incentive to change its position amid increasing calls in the West to "break" the isolation of the radical Islamist movement. On the contrary, talk in the West about the need to launch dialogue with Hamas has only served to toughen their stance....
"Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept the three conditions imposed by the Quartet members, but it has now toughened its position on the issue of reconciliation with Fatah...."
Among the latest members of the pro-Hamas camp are Muhammad el-Baradei, "reformist" candidate for the presidency of Egypt. He says that if he is elected he will accept Hamas's rule of the Gaza Strip and open the border completely to them. That's quite a reform.
Speaking of aggressive Islamism, here's the latest in Gareth Jenkins remarkable and scholarly analysis of how the Turkish Islamist regime uses false conspiracy charges to arrest and intimidate opponents. This story is either not covered at all in the West or the media actually swallows the repressive regime propaganda that it is arresting real conspirators! Jenkins has actually read the charges and finds them ridiculous.
I think there's a pattern here: the exact opposite to the one believed in the West.
Remember Fatah, the group controlling the Palestinian Authority (PA)? Well it has come out against direct negotiations with Israel. But wait! Isn't President Obama always saying the PA is really moderate and wants peace? Well, I keep saying that Fatah is still controlled by radicals who are far from ready for a peace agreement with Israel. Who are you going to believe?
And what happens when the PA, including Mahmoud Abbas himself, openly opposes the direct talks that Obama wants? Does there come a point when the U.S. government realizes that its big problem is the PA and not Israel?
Speaking of people throwing a pie in the face of Obama and dissing [American slang for disrespecting] U.S. interests, how about the open Russian declaration that it is going to help Iran get around sanctions? This follows U.S. government hints that since Russia voted for the UN sanctions it won't actually be expected to apply them.
Do you know what this means? The sanctions are not so much a hurt-Iran-to-discourage-nuclear weapons plan but a make-lots-of-money-for-Russia-by driving-out-Western-dealings-with-Iran-so Moscow-can-get-the-business.
At the same time, despite these shortcomings, the Obama Administration should get credit for the following: keeping strong U.S.-Israel security ties, working hard now on anti-Iran sanctions (though Congress deserves much of the credit), and beginning to lay the groundwork for containing Iran.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Friday, May 14, 2010
A Journalistic Fraud's Freudian Slip
By Barry Rubin
BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen is well known for his hatred and unfair reporting regarding Israel. So when he wrote an article for the BBC News website, Analysis: Bleak climate for Mid-East talks,' it wasn't surprising that it included the following passage:
"It has been an unusual and enjoyable [emphasis added] new experience to be able to look on as the Israelis argued with their most important ally. The fact that the dispute is over Jewish settlements is even better for the Palestinian."
Bowen has since said that he made an editing error and meant to say that it was "enjoyable" for the Palestinians. I believe him. But we all also know that he meant what he wrote, too.
BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen is well known for his hatred and unfair reporting regarding Israel. So when he wrote an article for the BBC News website, Analysis: Bleak climate for Mid-East talks,' it wasn't surprising that it included the following passage:
"It has been an unusual and enjoyable [emphasis added] new experience to be able to look on as the Israelis argued with their most important ally. The fact that the dispute is over Jewish settlements is even better for the Palestinian."
Bowen has since said that he made an editing error and meant to say that it was "enjoyable" for the Palestinians. I believe him. But we all also know that he meant what he wrote, too.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Britain's Top Military Chaplain Says We Must Recognize the Good Things about the Afghan Taliban
Please subscribe
By Barry Rubin
We’re getting used to it by now, the bizarre inability to recognize evil, the cultural relativism that excuses real political and war crimes, and the lack of faith by Westerners in their own civilization and religion. Yet each strange juxtapositions never fail to shock those who still remember the way things are supposed to be, and must be if the forces of dictatorship and repression are going to be beaten.
Sound too strong? Consider this new development. The Anglican Church's chief chaplain with the British army is praising the Afghani Taliban. The UK foreign minister just wants to make a deal with some of these collaborators with al-Qaida who enabled the September 11 attack and are among the world's leading totalitarians.
The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, recently appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams-- who himself favors Muslims in the UK living under Islamic Sharia law--said that while some of the Taliban’s methods are unacceptable, it is unhelpful to paint them as too evil in what is really “a very complex situation.”
It isn’t helpful to demonize Venner by exaggerating what he meant. Venner is not being an apologist for everything the Taliban has done nor does he want them to take over Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his misunderstanding reflects the dangerous incomprehension all too common in the West. What he really wants to do is to win over elements in the Taliban by being nice to them, then getting them to participate in creating a stable, moderate Afghanistan. That's just about the same thing as British government policy and perhaps U.S. government policy.
But here’s where the problems begin. Of course, in the Taliban as in other radical movements—including fascism and Communism—there are people who get caught up for personal or local reasons who might well break away under such conditions.
Yet those conditions are not the movement's enemies being nice to it. There are two ways such a “break away” can happen. First, they can realize that the movement to which they have dedicated and even risked their lives is bad. Or they can conclude that it is being defeated and it's time to change sides. This principle applies as well to al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhoods, Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as many other such ideologies and movements.
The problem with the Venner approach is by spreading a veneer of respectability about vicious tyrannical terrorists, it flatters rather than exposes and breaks their ideology. At the same time, making generous offers of forgiveness and participation assures them that they aren’t going to be defeated. In other words, the venerable Venners of the world ensure that the Taliban's supporters will stick with the group or, even worse, help them get into power.
Regarding the flattery aspect, Venner quickly starts talking about the “good” side of the Taliban:
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the West could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really. The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
But a group like the Taliban isn’t just a mix of nice and nasty things but rather a holistic ideology about the will of the deity, the nature of life, and the proper direction for society. People like Venner—quite numerous among Western clergy, academics, journalists, and politicians—simply cannot understand such an approach because they no longer believe in a coherent doctrine of their own.
Moreover, "conviction" and "sense of loyalty" are not abstractions. In a bad cause, we call this fanaticism. But people like Venner--and they are legion in the West today--simply don't understand that people with strong (bad) convictions kill millions of people. There's nothing admirable in that. Nothing at all. (And I won't even bring up the Nazis here.)
Let's put it bluntly: They want to kill you. If possible they would destroy your liberties and way of life but more likely they will just settle for bloody oppression of their own people. They ran the most repressive regime of our time. Admiration is out of the question.
The UK government's line, which the U.S. government is hinting at accepting, is that the Taliban or at least what are called “moderate elements” in it must be brought into Afghanistan's government. Foreign Minister David Miliband wants to buy them off with the promise that they will sit in the Afghan parliament in future.
Let me explain it to you: Do you think of Taliban types went into the government they would be transformed into nice moderate guys who just want to have peace and get along with everyone?
Again, if someone were to defect and turn against the Taliban then of course they could change sides. But the idea of bringing radical Islamists into government and then expect stability or moderation is quite foolish as they will still be compelled to seize state power, transform their societies into something even worse, and make war on the West.
Colonel Richard Kemp, who served in Afghanistan and retains a sense of reality, explained things that should be too obvious to need explanation, regarding this naiveté:
“Their central creed and ethos is about violent oppression which comes from a politics of extreme religion that has very little to commend it in terms that we would recognize or appreciate. In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the bishop follows. They certainly wouldn’t show understanding of his faith.”
In fact, they’d call him a Crusader and cut off his head.
One might add to that massacres; amputations; terrorism; a genocidal hatred toward the West, Christians, and Jews; and the reduction of women to slavery.
People used to make fun of those fooled by Communism or the Nazis but in many circles such lessons have been forgotten. Ironically the apologists for the world’s most reactionary and tyrannical forces are usually found among people who consider themselves progressives. The same people are often notoriously less empathetic when it comes to the United States or Israel, in whom they often appear to see far less good than in Islamist extremists.
Yet the West’s problem today is not that it is too unsympathetic to its enemies and too assertive about its own beliefs. Quite the contrary.
Update: Bishop Venner later apologized for his comment, saying it was ''one small phrase in quite a long interview'' intended to suggest that not all members of the Taliban were ''equally evil." Actually, in some ways that's formulation is even worse since if they were less evil this presumably means they didn't actually go around killing and oppressing people. But for that to be true they'd have to be pretty low-level and inactive, meaning they wouldn't be very important. But Venner envisions these people participating in the Afghan government. So I suppose that would apply if they signed the membership list at the meeting, didn't actually do anything, but are somehow important enough to be leaders of Afghanistan.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
By Barry Rubin
We’re getting used to it by now, the bizarre inability to recognize evil, the cultural relativism that excuses real political and war crimes, and the lack of faith by Westerners in their own civilization and religion. Yet each strange juxtapositions never fail to shock those who still remember the way things are supposed to be, and must be if the forces of dictatorship and repression are going to be beaten.
Sound too strong? Consider this new development. The Anglican Church's chief chaplain with the British army is praising the Afghani Taliban. The UK foreign minister just wants to make a deal with some of these collaborators with al-Qaida who enabled the September 11 attack and are among the world's leading totalitarians.
The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, recently appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams-- who himself favors Muslims in the UK living under Islamic Sharia law--said that while some of the Taliban’s methods are unacceptable, it is unhelpful to paint them as too evil in what is really “a very complex situation.”
It isn’t helpful to demonize Venner by exaggerating what he meant. Venner is not being an apologist for everything the Taliban has done nor does he want them to take over Afghanistan. Nevertheless, his misunderstanding reflects the dangerous incomprehension all too common in the West. What he really wants to do is to win over elements in the Taliban by being nice to them, then getting them to participate in creating a stable, moderate Afghanistan. That's just about the same thing as British government policy and perhaps U.S. government policy.
But here’s where the problems begin. Of course, in the Taliban as in other radical movements—including fascism and Communism—there are people who get caught up for personal or local reasons who might well break away under such conditions.
Yet those conditions are not the movement's enemies being nice to it. There are two ways such a “break away” can happen. First, they can realize that the movement to which they have dedicated and even risked their lives is bad. Or they can conclude that it is being defeated and it's time to change sides. This principle applies as well to al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhoods, Hamas, Hizballah, the Iranian and Syrian regimes, as well as many other such ideologies and movements.
The problem with the Venner approach is by spreading a veneer of respectability about vicious tyrannical terrorists, it flatters rather than exposes and breaks their ideology. At the same time, making generous offers of forgiveness and participation assures them that they aren’t going to be defeated. In other words, the venerable Venners of the world ensure that the Taliban's supporters will stick with the group or, even worse, help them get into power.
Regarding the flattery aspect, Venner quickly starts talking about the “good” side of the Taliban:
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for which none of us in the West could approve, but simply to say therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation because it’s not honest really. The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
But a group like the Taliban isn’t just a mix of nice and nasty things but rather a holistic ideology about the will of the deity, the nature of life, and the proper direction for society. People like Venner—quite numerous among Western clergy, academics, journalists, and politicians—simply cannot understand such an approach because they no longer believe in a coherent doctrine of their own.
Moreover, "conviction" and "sense of loyalty" are not abstractions. In a bad cause, we call this fanaticism. But people like Venner--and they are legion in the West today--simply don't understand that people with strong (bad) convictions kill millions of people. There's nothing admirable in that. Nothing at all. (And I won't even bring up the Nazis here.)
Let's put it bluntly: They want to kill you. If possible they would destroy your liberties and way of life but more likely they will just settle for bloody oppression of their own people. They ran the most repressive regime of our time. Admiration is out of the question.
The UK government's line, which the U.S. government is hinting at accepting, is that the Taliban or at least what are called “moderate elements” in it must be brought into Afghanistan's government. Foreign Minister David Miliband wants to buy them off with the promise that they will sit in the Afghan parliament in future.
Let me explain it to you: Do you think of Taliban types went into the government they would be transformed into nice moderate guys who just want to have peace and get along with everyone?
Again, if someone were to defect and turn against the Taliban then of course they could change sides. But the idea of bringing radical Islamists into government and then expect stability or moderation is quite foolish as they will still be compelled to seize state power, transform their societies into something even worse, and make war on the West.
Colonel Richard Kemp, who served in Afghanistan and retains a sense of reality, explained things that should be too obvious to need explanation, regarding this naiveté:
“Their central creed and ethos is about violent oppression which comes from a politics of extreme religion that has very little to commend it in terms that we would recognize or appreciate. In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the bishop follows. They certainly wouldn’t show understanding of his faith.”
In fact, they’d call him a Crusader and cut off his head.
One might add to that massacres; amputations; terrorism; a genocidal hatred toward the West, Christians, and Jews; and the reduction of women to slavery.
People used to make fun of those fooled by Communism or the Nazis but in many circles such lessons have been forgotten. Ironically the apologists for the world’s most reactionary and tyrannical forces are usually found among people who consider themselves progressives. The same people are often notoriously less empathetic when it comes to the United States or Israel, in whom they often appear to see far less good than in Islamist extremists.
Yet the West’s problem today is not that it is too unsympathetic to its enemies and too assertive about its own beliefs. Quite the contrary.
Update: Bishop Venner later apologized for his comment, saying it was ''one small phrase in quite a long interview'' intended to suggest that not all members of the Taliban were ''equally evil." Actually, in some ways that's formulation is even worse since if they were less evil this presumably means they didn't actually go around killing and oppressing people. But for that to be true they'd have to be pretty low-level and inactive, meaning they wouldn't be very important. But Venner envisions these people participating in the Afghan government. So I suppose that would apply if they signed the membership list at the meeting, didn't actually do anything, but are somehow important enough to be leaders of Afghanistan.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Monday, September 14, 2009
UK-Libya Relations: Release Terrorist, Make Oil Deal, Train…Terrorists?
By Barry Rubin
First the British government released a Lockerbie terrorist, despite his having killed so many people, as part of an oil deal with Libya. Now, according to a credible report, the British army will be training the elite forces of dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the same man who almost certainly ordered the Lockerbie bombing and many other terrorist attacks.
So reports the Daily Telegraph. Since early this year, the British army has been training Libyan Special Forces. The newspaper notes that Libya has also armed the IRA with guns and explosives in launching terror attacks against Britain in the past. The leak comes from British soldiers who are disgusted with this policy.
There could be arguments for this kind of activity in some cases. The British army could be trying to teach Libyan soldiers to behave better, seeking to build bridges for a closer relationship, or even recruiting intelligence agents.
The British government might well see this connection as shielding their country from terrorism at Libya’s hands. Let them go kill citizens of some other place. This is a frequently seen European policy in the past. Starting in the 1960s, archival documents show, the British government made nice to Fatah and the PLO politically in order to buy immunity, while France and Italy had policies in later decades of letting terrorist groups operate within their territory as long as they only attacked those outside of it.
But with the mercurial (a polite word for bizarre and psychopathic) as leader, it is unlikely that this will lead to anything good. Probably these skills will be put to use in future for carrying out terror attacks and training people from other countries to do so, possibly even against Britain.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books:
First the British government released a Lockerbie terrorist, despite his having killed so many people, as part of an oil deal with Libya. Now, according to a credible report, the British army will be training the elite forces of dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the same man who almost certainly ordered the Lockerbie bombing and many other terrorist attacks.
So reports the Daily Telegraph. Since early this year, the British army has been training Libyan Special Forces. The newspaper notes that Libya has also armed the IRA with guns and explosives in launching terror attacks against Britain in the past. The leak comes from British soldiers who are disgusted with this policy.
There could be arguments for this kind of activity in some cases. The British army could be trying to teach Libyan soldiers to behave better, seeking to build bridges for a closer relationship, or even recruiting intelligence agents.
The British government might well see this connection as shielding their country from terrorism at Libya’s hands. Let them go kill citizens of some other place. This is a frequently seen European policy in the past. Starting in the 1960s, archival documents show, the British government made nice to Fatah and the PLO politically in order to buy immunity, while France and Italy had policies in later decades of letting terrorist groups operate within their territory as long as they only attacked those outside of it.
But with the mercurial (a polite word for bizarre and psychopathic) as leader, it is unlikely that this will lead to anything good. Probably these skills will be put to use in future for carrying out terror attacks and training people from other countries to do so, possibly even against Britain.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books:
Sunday, September 6, 2009
How Not to Moderate Radicals: The UK, Libya, Prisoner Releases, and Oil Deals
By Barry Rubin
The scandal of Britain releasing a Libyan terrorist who helped kill 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in exchange for an oil deal continues to build. But I want to focus on some details of the issue that shed light on…well, just about everything concerning Western relations with the Middle East.
First, in a damaging interview, UK Justice Minister Jack Straw admitted that the oil deal was “a very big part” of the prisoner deal. This in itself is shocking. Straw is known for being too free with his mouth and this time opened it large enough for his foot to enter firmly therein.
The interesting part is how Straw justifies such behavior:
“I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP [British Petroleum] deal.”
Of course, we know that what goes on with trade—and this applies to Syria, Iran, and other “rogue” states is not to make moderation but to make money. But here are the other problems.
First, Libya, of course, is still an extremist state. . So the “moderation” through concession policy has failed repeatedly.
Only in the last week dictator Muammar Qadhafi blamed Israel for all the woes of the Africa continent and threatened Switzerland because it dare send police when his visiting son beat up two servants.
Second, regarding Switzerland, that country backed down on the incident in the face of Libyan demands. Surrender and concession is also a big part of the “moderation” strategy. But in the context of Middle Eastern social psychology and political culture, such behavior only emboldens the radicals, which is also what’s happening. And this leads naturally to the next point.
Third, whatever you think of the Iraq war remember that Libya’s temporary “moderation”—in the form of giving up its nuclear weapons program—came out of pure fear. The United States had just invaded Iraq in 2003 and Qadhafi worried, wrongly of course, that he would be next. Power matters and the use of leverage is a major tool in international affairs.
It is generally better to make threats rather than to have to implement them. Yet failing to use power well, emboldening adversaries, and setting off crises is often what leads to war. The steady weakening of the sanctions against Iraq was a major cause of the U.S. decision to invade.
Another example was the mistaken U.S. neutrality in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis of 1990, which Baghdad perceived as giving it a green light to attack and annex its neighbor. That the Obama administration has just repeated this error in the current Iraq-Syria crisis only underlines the sad failure to learn that lesson.
Finally, and most intriguingly, is the ease of fooling—and thus making fools—of the West. Significant here is the op-ed piece by a high Libyan official in a major U.S. newspaper, denying that he had received a hero’s welcome (the same treatment as a hero that Lebanese and Syrian leaders gave recently to another terrorist who murdered civilians in cold blood).
Incidentally, how many media outlets pointed out the fact that the released prisoner was merely an intelligence officer who took his orders from Qadhafi himself? When a high-ranking intelligence officer is convicted of terrorism, it means that state-sponsored terrorism is going on. Qadhafi has the blood of those 270 Lockerbie victims on his hands.
You can see that’s a lie in the photos but by publishing a factually false op-ed piece—well what do you expect when dealing with repressive, terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships?—the newspaper misinformed its readers.
Over and over again we see these four basic features of contemporary life being illustrated. Why isn’t the lesson learned and implemented by the leaders of democratic states?
One reason: oil deals and maintaining peace and quiet are more important to some of them than are the lives of their citizens.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
The scandal of Britain releasing a Libyan terrorist who helped kill 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in exchange for an oil deal continues to build. But I want to focus on some details of the issue that shed light on…well, just about everything concerning Western relations with the Middle East.
First, in a damaging interview, UK Justice Minister Jack Straw admitted that the oil deal was “a very big part” of the prisoner deal. This in itself is shocking. Straw is known for being too free with his mouth and this time opened it large enough for his foot to enter firmly therein.
The interesting part is how Straw justifies such behavior:
“I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP [British Petroleum] deal.”
Of course, we know that what goes on with trade—and this applies to Syria, Iran, and other “rogue” states is not to make moderation but to make money. But here are the other problems.
First, Libya, of course, is still an extremist state. . So the “moderation” through concession policy has failed repeatedly.
Only in the last week dictator Muammar Qadhafi blamed Israel for all the woes of the Africa continent and threatened Switzerland because it dare send police when his visiting son beat up two servants.
Second, regarding Switzerland, that country backed down on the incident in the face of Libyan demands. Surrender and concession is also a big part of the “moderation” strategy. But in the context of Middle Eastern social psychology and political culture, such behavior only emboldens the radicals, which is also what’s happening. And this leads naturally to the next point.
Third, whatever you think of the Iraq war remember that Libya’s temporary “moderation”—in the form of giving up its nuclear weapons program—came out of pure fear. The United States had just invaded Iraq in 2003 and Qadhafi worried, wrongly of course, that he would be next. Power matters and the use of leverage is a major tool in international affairs.
It is generally better to make threats rather than to have to implement them. Yet failing to use power well, emboldening adversaries, and setting off crises is often what leads to war. The steady weakening of the sanctions against Iraq was a major cause of the U.S. decision to invade.
Another example was the mistaken U.S. neutrality in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis of 1990, which Baghdad perceived as giving it a green light to attack and annex its neighbor. That the Obama administration has just repeated this error in the current Iraq-Syria crisis only underlines the sad failure to learn that lesson.
Finally, and most intriguingly, is the ease of fooling—and thus making fools—of the West. Significant here is the op-ed piece by a high Libyan official in a major U.S. newspaper, denying that he had received a hero’s welcome (the same treatment as a hero that Lebanese and Syrian leaders gave recently to another terrorist who murdered civilians in cold blood).
Incidentally, how many media outlets pointed out the fact that the released prisoner was merely an intelligence officer who took his orders from Qadhafi himself? When a high-ranking intelligence officer is convicted of terrorism, it means that state-sponsored terrorism is going on. Qadhafi has the blood of those 270 Lockerbie victims on his hands.
You can see that’s a lie in the photos but by publishing a factually false op-ed piece—well what do you expect when dealing with repressive, terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships?—the newspaper misinformed its readers.
Over and over again we see these four basic features of contemporary life being illustrated. Why isn’t the lesson learned and implemented by the leaders of democratic states?
One reason: oil deals and maintaining peace and quiet are more important to some of them than are the lives of their citizens.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal
By Barry Rubin
On the face of it, growing evidence that the British government released a terrorist who murdered 270 people in exchange for an oil deal is shockingly loathsome.
But that’s not the worst of it.
Here’s the worst of it: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was not a free-lance terrorist but a Libyan intelligence officer. And the bombing of the Lockerbie plane was a large-scale operation, ordered and organized by the Libyan government and, first and foremost, its madcap dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
So Britain didn’t just release a murderer in exchange for a good oil deal, it released a murderer who had shielded his Mafia kingpin—Qadhafi—so that London could make a deal with the chief terrorist himself, who is soon to arrive at the UN as an honored speaker. Moreover, Megrahi, far from deserving any compassion, had refused to cooperate with the investigation all along. He “took the rap” but then helped make it impossible to catch and punish those most responsible.
Or to put it another way, Britain released a foot soldier who was a cog in the terrorist implementation team in order to make a deal with the man directly responsible for ordering the murders of 270 passengers and many other acts of terrorism, too.
True, it can be pointed out that lots of countries deal with Libya and that Qadhafi's decision to abandon his secret nuclear weapons' program was an element in ending the sanctions against Libya. But part of the price for Libya's escape from isolation was the turning over of Megrahi. So the message is consistent with other Western actions: In the end, we will give you what you want without your having to give up anything (or much).
(My scenario: Tell Megrahi he will never get out and will die in prison unless he spills the beans on the involvement of Qadhafi and other Libyan leaders in the attack. Even then, though, he probably wouldn't say anything. Why, ideological loyalty? No, probably the fact that his family back in Libya would face a pretty grim fate if he told the truth.)
Basically, the release took place after negotiations between Libya and British Petroleum because, said documents from the prime minister’s office, it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom.” Obviously, a humanitarian decision to release a dying man in order to make his last days more comfortable is not going to be described as in the overwhelming national interest.
Apparently what happened, based on the leaked documents, is that the Libyan government made it clear that unless he was released there would be no deal. Qadhafi was showing gratitude to the man who had protected him from being subjected to charges on the Lockerbie business.
Once the British backed down and agreed to release him, Libya quickly ratified the oil deal.
There are various unconvincing denials that this was a real blood for oil arrangement.
Even approaching this issue from a cynical Middle East perspective, the British government’s behavior is despicable. This follows close on a decision to stop an investigation of a case--BAE Systems
(British Aerospace)--where high-up Saudis were involved in bribery lest this damage UK-Saudi economic relations.
And of course there is the obsessive anti-Israel stances taken (though more by other European states than by Britain) which relate to profits as well. Upcoming is the decision on commercial profits versus higher sanctions on Iran.
Rather than the West—as some rather naively dreamed—spreading democracy, free speech, and tolerance to the Middle East, the Middle East seems to be spreading undemocratic practices, a muzzling of speech, and intolerance to the West.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
On the face of it, growing evidence that the British government released a terrorist who murdered 270 people in exchange for an oil deal is shockingly loathsome.
But that’s not the worst of it.
Here’s the worst of it: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was not a free-lance terrorist but a Libyan intelligence officer. And the bombing of the Lockerbie plane was a large-scale operation, ordered and organized by the Libyan government and, first and foremost, its madcap dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
So Britain didn’t just release a murderer in exchange for a good oil deal, it released a murderer who had shielded his Mafia kingpin—Qadhafi—so that London could make a deal with the chief terrorist himself, who is soon to arrive at the UN as an honored speaker. Moreover, Megrahi, far from deserving any compassion, had refused to cooperate with the investigation all along. He “took the rap” but then helped make it impossible to catch and punish those most responsible.
Or to put it another way, Britain released a foot soldier who was a cog in the terrorist implementation team in order to make a deal with the man directly responsible for ordering the murders of 270 passengers and many other acts of terrorism, too.
True, it can be pointed out that lots of countries deal with Libya and that Qadhafi's decision to abandon his secret nuclear weapons' program was an element in ending the sanctions against Libya. But part of the price for Libya's escape from isolation was the turning over of Megrahi. So the message is consistent with other Western actions: In the end, we will give you what you want without your having to give up anything (or much).
(My scenario: Tell Megrahi he will never get out and will die in prison unless he spills the beans on the involvement of Qadhafi and other Libyan leaders in the attack. Even then, though, he probably wouldn't say anything. Why, ideological loyalty? No, probably the fact that his family back in Libya would face a pretty grim fate if he told the truth.)
Basically, the release took place after negotiations between Libya and British Petroleum because, said documents from the prime minister’s office, it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom.” Obviously, a humanitarian decision to release a dying man in order to make his last days more comfortable is not going to be described as in the overwhelming national interest.
Apparently what happened, based on the leaked documents, is that the Libyan government made it clear that unless he was released there would be no deal. Qadhafi was showing gratitude to the man who had protected him from being subjected to charges on the Lockerbie business.
Once the British backed down and agreed to release him, Libya quickly ratified the oil deal.
There are various unconvincing denials that this was a real blood for oil arrangement.
Even approaching this issue from a cynical Middle East perspective, the British government’s behavior is despicable. This follows close on a decision to stop an investigation of a case--BAE Systems
(British Aerospace)--where high-up Saudis were involved in bribery lest this damage UK-Saudi economic relations.
And of course there is the obsessive anti-Israel stances taken (though more by other European states than by Britain) which relate to profits as well. Upcoming is the decision on commercial profits versus higher sanctions on Iran.
Rather than the West—as some rather naively dreamed—spreading democracy, free speech, and tolerance to the Middle East, the Middle East seems to be spreading undemocratic practices, a muzzling of speech, and intolerance to the West.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Hamas and the House of (No) Commons(ense)
By Barry Rubin
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just issued a 100-page report on the Middle East. Here is the main conclusion as expressed by Mike Gapes, the committee chair:
“We see few signs that the current policy of non-engagement with Hamas is achieving the Quartet’s stated objectives....We therefore reiterate our recommendation from 2007, that the government should urgently consider engaging with moderate elements within Hamas.”
In those few words are expressed six of the main and most harmful Western myths about the Middle East.
First, make the problem go away. Anything other than that is failure. Containing Hamas, weakening it over time, showing that radicalism doesn’t pay, or other such goals are not worth pursuing. Only if there is no more problem can the objective be considered achieved. This assumes that peace, quiet, and the existence of no problems is the normal state of politics and international relations. It isn’t.
Thus, follows the conclusion that policy has failed, but it can succeed, and something must be done.
Second, problems can and should be made to go away fast. Patience is a failure, not a virtue. So something must be done immediately. Naturally, this is not the rule the Middle Eastern factors play by. They believe in attrition, wearing the other side down, in the belief that God and history is on their side, while the West is cowardly and weak. They are half-right.
Third, that something which must be done must be Western and Israeli concessions. The argument is that if the other side is intransigent, that means its intended victims cannot be since a quick solution has to be achieved. Even if the status quo is not so bad for the West and the other side is supposedly losing, since issues must be resolved our own defeat is preferable to steadfastness.
There are--in a reversal of all previous thinking--only two alternative strategies offered since victory has been defined as both impossible and undesirable: surrender because our side is suffering losses and casualties, or give in because the other side is suffering at our hands.
The first--human losses, fear of terrorism, desire for more money by, say, trading with Iran--is often the real reationale; the second--deprivation and death of those on the enemy side--offers a chance for humanitarian self-congratulation. The fact that this would empower terrorists and extremists to kill and repress more people is ignored since it isn't admitted that the conflict would continue no matter what concessions are given.
Fourth, the nature of your opponent is irrelevant. Ideology is unimportant. We all believe in the same things, don't we? So just because a group, Hamas in this case, says that Jews are sub-humans, that Israel must be wiped off the map, that Western power must be broken, that Islam must triumph over everything, doesn't really mean anything, does it? We all "want the same things" supposedly. So you deal with Hamas or Hizballah or Iran or Syria the same way you manage, for example, an environmental group from Surrey or a local housing authority in Kent.
Fifth, there’s got to be a moderate in there somewhere. President Ronald Reagan once joked that an optimist is someone who sees a room full of manure and concludes that there must be a pony in there somewhere. A modern European (and often American nowadays) statesman is someone who sees a terrorist movement or aggressive radical regime and is certain there's a moderate in there somewhere. And naturally if the West gives enough concessions to these "moderates" the "naturally" moderate character of the movement's members will take over and lead to a compromise settlement that will make the problem go away quickly.
Sixth, if anyone stands in the way of this grand design--like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Israel in 2009--that foolish little country which actually thinks its own survival, much less interests, are of any importance becomes the villain. Why if only it sacrificed itself the problem could be solved and peace in our time established! There's an appropriate Yiddish proverb here: When a man is dead his problems cease.
A European in the audience angrily asked me during a recent lecture why they should all die because of Israel. Islamist terrorists are coming after them, you see, but if they just feed Israel to the carnivores, the sheep will be left in peace to live or at least make money and be left along. Such an accusation would be huffily denied and usually doesn't appear on the surface but it is, nonetheless, quite true.
One can only gape at the wisdom of Gapes. In the hands of such ignoramuses--not only ignorant of facts (which could be forgiven) but also on the most fundamental principles of politics and diplomacy--does the Western world's fate lie. Why not Israel's fate? Because it won't heed such counsels. But of course they can also do a great deal of damage to it as well.
This reminds me of something. In 1969, according to declassified British documents, the British government decided to open a dialogue with Fatah, which was daily carrying out terrorist operitions against Israel, portraying the PFLP as the radicals and Fatah as the moderates. Basically, in the meetings the British government is begging Fatah not to attack the UK and to discourage the PFLP from attacking.
The next year, in the war between King Hussein of Jordan--one of the closest British clients--and Fatah/PLO, the British government threw King Hussein under the bus and was ready to accept Arafat as Jordan's ruler. Fortunately, the US and Israel saved the king. If UK policy had had its way then, the results would have been horrifying.
Oh, and so the House of Lords doesn't feel left out here's something about UK policy toward Hizballah, which has been along similar lines.
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee has just issued a 100-page report on the Middle East. Here is the main conclusion as expressed by Mike Gapes, the committee chair:
“We see few signs that the current policy of non-engagement with Hamas is achieving the Quartet’s stated objectives....We therefore reiterate our recommendation from 2007, that the government should urgently consider engaging with moderate elements within Hamas.”
In those few words are expressed six of the main and most harmful Western myths about the Middle East.
First, make the problem go away. Anything other than that is failure. Containing Hamas, weakening it over time, showing that radicalism doesn’t pay, or other such goals are not worth pursuing. Only if there is no more problem can the objective be considered achieved. This assumes that peace, quiet, and the existence of no problems is the normal state of politics and international relations. It isn’t.
Thus, follows the conclusion that policy has failed, but it can succeed, and something must be done.
Second, problems can and should be made to go away fast. Patience is a failure, not a virtue. So something must be done immediately. Naturally, this is not the rule the Middle Eastern factors play by. They believe in attrition, wearing the other side down, in the belief that God and history is on their side, while the West is cowardly and weak. They are half-right.
Third, that something which must be done must be Western and Israeli concessions. The argument is that if the other side is intransigent, that means its intended victims cannot be since a quick solution has to be achieved. Even if the status quo is not so bad for the West and the other side is supposedly losing, since issues must be resolved our own defeat is preferable to steadfastness.
There are--in a reversal of all previous thinking--only two alternative strategies offered since victory has been defined as both impossible and undesirable: surrender because our side is suffering losses and casualties, or give in because the other side is suffering at our hands.
The first--human losses, fear of terrorism, desire for more money by, say, trading with Iran--is often the real reationale; the second--deprivation and death of those on the enemy side--offers a chance for humanitarian self-congratulation. The fact that this would empower terrorists and extremists to kill and repress more people is ignored since it isn't admitted that the conflict would continue no matter what concessions are given.
Fourth, the nature of your opponent is irrelevant. Ideology is unimportant. We all believe in the same things, don't we? So just because a group, Hamas in this case, says that Jews are sub-humans, that Israel must be wiped off the map, that Western power must be broken, that Islam must triumph over everything, doesn't really mean anything, does it? We all "want the same things" supposedly. So you deal with Hamas or Hizballah or Iran or Syria the same way you manage, for example, an environmental group from Surrey or a local housing authority in Kent.
Fifth, there’s got to be a moderate in there somewhere. President Ronald Reagan once joked that an optimist is someone who sees a room full of manure and concludes that there must be a pony in there somewhere. A modern European (and often American nowadays) statesman is someone who sees a terrorist movement or aggressive radical regime and is certain there's a moderate in there somewhere. And naturally if the West gives enough concessions to these "moderates" the "naturally" moderate character of the movement's members will take over and lead to a compromise settlement that will make the problem go away quickly.
Sixth, if anyone stands in the way of this grand design--like Czechoslovakia in 1938 or Israel in 2009--that foolish little country which actually thinks its own survival, much less interests, are of any importance becomes the villain. Why if only it sacrificed itself the problem could be solved and peace in our time established! There's an appropriate Yiddish proverb here: When a man is dead his problems cease.
A European in the audience angrily asked me during a recent lecture why they should all die because of Israel. Islamist terrorists are coming after them, you see, but if they just feed Israel to the carnivores, the sheep will be left in peace to live or at least make money and be left along. Such an accusation would be huffily denied and usually doesn't appear on the surface but it is, nonetheless, quite true.
One can only gape at the wisdom of Gapes. In the hands of such ignoramuses--not only ignorant of facts (which could be forgiven) but also on the most fundamental principles of politics and diplomacy--does the Western world's fate lie. Why not Israel's fate? Because it won't heed such counsels. But of course they can also do a great deal of damage to it as well.
This reminds me of something. In 1969, according to declassified British documents, the British government decided to open a dialogue with Fatah, which was daily carrying out terrorist operitions against Israel, portraying the PFLP as the radicals and Fatah as the moderates. Basically, in the meetings the British government is begging Fatah not to attack the UK and to discourage the PFLP from attacking.
The next year, in the war between King Hussein of Jordan--one of the closest British clients--and Fatah/PLO, the British government threw King Hussein under the bus and was ready to accept Arafat as Jordan's ruler. Fortunately, the US and Israel saved the king. If UK policy had had its way then, the results would have been horrifying.
Oh, and so the House of Lords doesn't feel left out here's something about UK policy toward Hizballah, which has been along similar lines.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
New Issue of MERIA Journal: Articles on Egypt, Gulf, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey
The latest issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal (Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2009) is available . You can read online or download the following articles. You can also subscribe to have them delivered to you
Here are the articles, available in html and pdf:
Jonathan Spyer
ISRAEL AND LEBANON: PROBLEMATIC PROXIMITY
Eser Sekercioglu
TURKEY'S MARCH 2009 ELECTIONS: LOSS WITHOUT DEFEAT, GAIN WITHOUT VICTORY
Barry Rubin
U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY: TOO MANY CHALLENGES AND YET A SINGLE THEME
Panel Discussion
THE SMALL GULF STATES: THE BEST CASE EXAMPLES IN THE ARAB WORLD?
Adel Guindy
THE TALIBANIZATION OF EDUCATION IN EGYPT
Joana Dodds and Ben Wilson
THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES
Panagiotis Dimtirakis
THE 1978 BATTLE OF LARNACA AIRPORT, CYPRUS, AND UK DIPLOMACY
Here are the articles, available in html and pdf:
Jonathan Spyer
ISRAEL AND LEBANON: PROBLEMATIC PROXIMITY
Eser Sekercioglu
TURKEY'S MARCH 2009 ELECTIONS: LOSS WITHOUT DEFEAT, GAIN WITHOUT VICTORY
Barry Rubin
U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY: TOO MANY CHALLENGES AND YET A SINGLE THEME
Panel Discussion
THE SMALL GULF STATES: THE BEST CASE EXAMPLES IN THE ARAB WORLD?
Adel Guindy
THE TALIBANIZATION OF EDUCATION IN EGYPT
Joana Dodds and Ben Wilson
THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES
Panagiotis Dimtirakis
THE 1978 BATTLE OF LARNACA AIRPORT, CYPRUS, AND UK DIPLOMACY
Friday, May 8, 2009
Obama’s Syria Policy: It’s Not all Bad
People ask me why I criticize the Obama administration some days, note positive developments on others, and at still different times say that things are acceptable if not great. That’s because I look at the facts and make my judgment accordingly. Not every issue is the same; not all administration officials are identical. Of course what’s most important is who wins out in the end. But it’s too early to know that.
So far, Iran policy has been pretty bad and Israel policy so far ok, policy toward Syria has been the best of the lot. That doesn’t mean all is well. The administration has been too soft on supporting moderates against the Iran-Syria clients in Lebanon—they say the right things generally but they aren’t backed up by any sense of toughness or influence—yet cautious about engagement with Syria.
The basis for this, it seems, is that Iran is more of a White House issue and Syria is more under the control of the State Department? I can’t be certain but that’s what appears to be true. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman seem to understand Syria’s subversive role, sponsorship of Hamas and Hizballah, campaign to take over Lebanon, and solid alliance with Iran.
So while many are eager to portray Syria as moderate, Clinton and Feltman no doubt noticed the wildly enthusiastic welcome the Syrians organized last week for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian regime may be able to poke America in the eye and get away with it. The Syrians are being held, at least so far, to a higher standard.
Remember, this is a country which, according to the State Department's own terrorism report just released, has “ties to the world's most notorious terrorists” including those who killed over 350 Americans in attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. The report also points out that Syria is a major funder of terrorism, the biggest transport route for terrorists coming into Iraq to murder Americans, and backs Hizballah which is training the Iraq terrorists to make bombs to blow up U.S. soldiers.
It is thus encouraging to see some effort, with three promising developments. First, the Obama administration has renewed U.S. sanctions against Syria for the next year. Members of Congress pressed for this step but if the White House really wanted to break with past policies and signal to Damascus its eagerness to be buddies, it could have asked that they not be continued.
Second, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Rice said that the United States makes no distinction between a “political” and a “military” wing of Hizballah. This is a direct slap at the British government which has been weakening on this issue, seeking engagement with Hizballah under the guise of talking only to those who order people murdered not those who actually do it.
Third, a State Department official told an Arab newspaper that no decision has yet been made about returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus. Any improvement of bilateral relations depends on Syria’s behavior toward the June 7 Lebanese elections.
It may not be up to the level of past U.S. toughness, but the administration, or at least parts of it, seems determined not to play the fool for the Syrian dictatorship. We’ll have to see what happens in the Lebanese elections and how U.S. policy reacts to know better how the administration’s strategy will develop.
So far, Iran policy has been pretty bad and Israel policy so far ok, policy toward Syria has been the best of the lot. That doesn’t mean all is well. The administration has been too soft on supporting moderates against the Iran-Syria clients in Lebanon—they say the right things generally but they aren’t backed up by any sense of toughness or influence—yet cautious about engagement with Syria.
The basis for this, it seems, is that Iran is more of a White House issue and Syria is more under the control of the State Department? I can’t be certain but that’s what appears to be true. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman seem to understand Syria’s subversive role, sponsorship of Hamas and Hizballah, campaign to take over Lebanon, and solid alliance with Iran.
So while many are eager to portray Syria as moderate, Clinton and Feltman no doubt noticed the wildly enthusiastic welcome the Syrians organized last week for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian regime may be able to poke America in the eye and get away with it. The Syrians are being held, at least so far, to a higher standard.
Remember, this is a country which, according to the State Department's own terrorism report just released, has “ties to the world's most notorious terrorists” including those who killed over 350 Americans in attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. The report also points out that Syria is a major funder of terrorism, the biggest transport route for terrorists coming into Iraq to murder Americans, and backs Hizballah which is training the Iraq terrorists to make bombs to blow up U.S. soldiers.
It is thus encouraging to see some effort, with three promising developments. First, the Obama administration has renewed U.S. sanctions against Syria for the next year. Members of Congress pressed for this step but if the White House really wanted to break with past policies and signal to Damascus its eagerness to be buddies, it could have asked that they not be continued.
Second, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Rice said that the United States makes no distinction between a “political” and a “military” wing of Hizballah. This is a direct slap at the British government which has been weakening on this issue, seeking engagement with Hizballah under the guise of talking only to those who order people murdered not those who actually do it.
Third, a State Department official told an Arab newspaper that no decision has yet been made about returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus. Any improvement of bilateral relations depends on Syria’s behavior toward the June 7 Lebanese elections.
It may not be up to the level of past U.S. toughness, but the administration, or at least parts of it, seems determined not to play the fool for the Syrian dictatorship. We’ll have to see what happens in the Lebanese elections and how U.S. policy reacts to know better how the administration’s strategy will develop.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Who Hates Who?
I've posted on the blog stories about the crazed slanders regarding Israel that are circulated in the Middle East and in countries like the UK (that play, remember?) often focussing on how Israelis allegedly teach their children to kill Arabs, hate Muslims, etc.
So a little reality. My nine-year-old son comes home today from school and remarks that it is Jerusalem Day. So, ask I, what did you learn? He begins as follows: "Jerusalem is holy to three religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity...."
That's what Israeli schools are teaching. Of course, they are teaching more about the historic and religious Jewish relationship to Jerusalem, but what's actually conveyed has nothing to do with the lies and mirror-imaging of the people who teach hatred and intolerance of others, not to mention incitement to murder them from leaders, schools, media, and religious services.
And one day (sarcasm alert!) I hope the UN organizes a conference to discourage such behavior.
So a little reality. My nine-year-old son comes home today from school and remarks that it is Jerusalem Day. So, ask I, what did you learn? He begins as follows: "Jerusalem is holy to three religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity...."
That's what Israeli schools are teaching. Of course, they are teaching more about the historic and religious Jewish relationship to Jerusalem, but what's actually conveyed has nothing to do with the lies and mirror-imaging of the people who teach hatred and intolerance of others, not to mention incitement to murder them from leaders, schools, media, and religious services.
And one day (sarcasm alert!) I hope the UN organizes a conference to discourage such behavior.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Penny Wise; Pound Foolish
Contrary to Communist mythology, the Western capitalist democracies did not try very hard to counter the 1917 Russian revolution. There were some small missions by military units but no real effort. On the contrary, motivated by other priorities, distaste for intervention, and opposition from their domestic lefts, Britain and France did little. They did not support Poland’s requests for help when it might well have brought down the new-born Bolshevik government. Nor did they aid independent republics established in Byelorussia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, and other places.
In response to this policy, Winston Churchill wrote to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George in July 1920: "We are deliberately throwing away piecemeal the friends who could have helped us. Halfhearted war is being followed by halfhearted peace. We are going, I fear, to lose both, and be left alone….We are just crumbling our power away."
By today’s standards, and even those prevalent back then, the French and British were acting nobly, letting countries (or at least those with the most guns in them) battle things out on their own, avoiding violent entanglements, acting in a “non-imperialist” manner, yet the result was a 75-year-long dictatorship over the USSR’s citizens, the creation of millions of victims elsewhere, and the costs of World War Two (Nazi Germany being a reaction against and in some ways copying the USSR; Soviet Russia and Germany being allies from the 1920s; Stalin’s alliance with Hitler giving the green light for the beginning of the war through the German-Soviet invasion of Poland)
Today, the unwillingness to counter (and often even to coddle) radical forces and ideologies—so visible in dealings with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea or movements like Hamas and Hizballah—brings short-term self-congratulation and avoidance of trouble. In the long run, it is ensuring decades of strife and bloodshed.
In response to this policy, Winston Churchill wrote to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George in July 1920: "We are deliberately throwing away piecemeal the friends who could have helped us. Halfhearted war is being followed by halfhearted peace. We are going, I fear, to lose both, and be left alone….We are just crumbling our power away."
By today’s standards, and even those prevalent back then, the French and British were acting nobly, letting countries (or at least those with the most guns in them) battle things out on their own, avoiding violent entanglements, acting in a “non-imperialist” manner, yet the result was a 75-year-long dictatorship over the USSR’s citizens, the creation of millions of victims elsewhere, and the costs of World War Two (Nazi Germany being a reaction against and in some ways copying the USSR; Soviet Russia and Germany being allies from the 1920s; Stalin’s alliance with Hitler giving the green light for the beginning of the war through the German-Soviet invasion of Poland)
Today, the unwillingness to counter (and often even to coddle) radical forces and ideologies—so visible in dealings with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea or movements like Hamas and Hizballah—brings short-term self-congratulation and avoidance of trouble. In the long run, it is ensuring decades of strife and bloodshed.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Declaration of Durban-2, Text
And if you want to read the final declaration of the Durban-2 conference, written beforehand by a committee dominated by Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, and Cuba but accepted without change after the conference in only 15 minutes--no debate allowed--here is the text.
Unless your country is one of the ten that refused to attend--Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, United States--or the Czech republic, which walked out of the meeting altogether--your government has now approved this document as its position on these issues.
Unless your country is one of the ten that refused to attend--Germany, Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, United States--or the Czech republic, which walked out of the meeting altogether--your government has now approved this document as its position on these issues.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Updated and Expanded: The Anglo-American Pro-Hamas Lobby (see new postscript)
The following article is by my colleague at our Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. What makes this piece a real scoop is that Dr. Spyer reveals how the EU is financing a group lobbying to gain Hamas and Hizballah--two terrorist and revolutionary Islamist groups tied to Iran--recognition, concessions, and support in the West. This is nothing short of a scandal.
[See a new postscript about the latest statements of Hamas]
By Jonathan Spyer
A meeting was meant to take place April 23 in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting, entitled "Talk with Hamas," featured that group's most powerful leader, Khaled Mashal, speaking from Damascus to an audience of parliament member and journalists.
But he never spoke because the video conference link didn't work. Still, the fact that the meeting was being held at all is the important point, and it shows the workings of the pro-Hamas lobby in London, and the West more generally.
This meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.
In turn, this campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements - and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.
Who is behind this effort? The invitation came from the office of Independent Member of Parliament Clare Short.
However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.
Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry. Crooke is a former British intelligence officer, while the US-based Perry is described by the organization's website as a "military, intelligence and foreign affairs analyst." It describes its aim as opening "a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world."
What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.
The document notes the need to build a "link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."
It suggests, "Articulation of Hamas's and Hizballah's values, philosophy and wider political and social programs....Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology."
The Conflicts' Forum publication lays down a precise strategy for promoting Hamas and Hizbullah. The various public relations' devices include:
"Use influential individuals--key Muslim personalities...use the Internet, DVD, interviews, podcasts....Link with mass organizations in Western countries--social movements, trade unions - to challenge hegemonic discourse. Approach editors of established journals... with a view to the possibility of them doing a special issue on Islamist thinking or on particular issues."
Undoubtedly, the attempted video link between Hamas HQ in Damascus and the Grimond Room in Portcullis House was meant to be a worthy contribution to this extensive effort to "re-brand" Hamas and Hizballah.
The UK, and the EU as a whole, remain committed to the Quartet conditions which Hamas must meet to become a partner for dialogue. Hamas (or at least its "military wing") remains on the EU list of proscribed terror organizations.
A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts' Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."
So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.
How important are the efforts of Conflicts Forum and its associated groups? Are initiatives such as Wednesday's planned meeting likely to have a tangible effect on policy?
Britain has, of course, already announced that it intends to hold talks with Hizbullah. On Hamas, however, no immediate significant shift in British government policy looks likely.
The Hamas Lobby is busy and active. It encompasses former senior diplomats such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, as well as the Conflicts Forum nexus.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has praised the Egyptian role in managing dialogue with Hamas in the following terms: "Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do, and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."
A knowledgeable source noted that many in the Foreign Office consider that engagement with the group is a "matter of time."
Still, for as long as the United States remains firmly committed to insisting that Hamas first abide by the three Quartet conditions (committing to nonviolence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous agreements and obligations), the UK is unlikely to break ranks openly. Differences might well surface if a Palestinian coalition government that included Hams were to be formed. But this currently looks highly improbable.
Ultimately, the main obstacle to the success of Lord Alderdice, Clare Short and their friends in Conflicts' Forum may well be the nature of their client. Hamas leaders have an unfortunate tendency to be candid regarding their movement's goals. This makes presenting the "positive aspects of Islamist ideology" something of a challenge.
Hamas "Foreign Minister" Mahmoud Zahar, for example, speaking last week, stated bluntly that "[Hamas] will never recognize the enemy [Israel] in any way, shape or form."
A few months ago, the same speaker asserted that "they [Jews] have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine....They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
Spinning statements of that kind into moderation would pose a challenge to the smoothest of PR operators. But as the planned Portcullis House meeting showed, Hamas possesses an experienced, well-oiled, well-funded (largely by the European taxpayer) lobby in the heart of London.
Dr. Jonathan Spyer, senior fellow, is my colleague at our GLORIA Center
Postscript [from Barry Rubin]: Just as distinguished and very well-mannered British apologists for Hamas were holding a meeting explaining that Hamas is misunderstood, the group continues its openly antisemitic and genocidal rhetoric. See for yourself.
In a recent booklet entitled The Zionist Holocaust, here is what Hamas has to say:
Page 10: "that country, the one called `Israel'...believes only in killing and destruction...some of its principles are endless fighting, shedding blood and corruption. For the Jews, all men are flocks of lambs [i.e., fit for slaughter], while only they [the Jews] are fit to live ...”
Page 221: The Palestinians have only two options, to surrender or wiping out Israel and the Jews.
Oh and the Introduction is written by Ismail Haniya, who is often referred to as a "moderate" and the leader of Hamas's "political wing."
[Memo to Haniya: That was very clever of you to hide the Hamas leadership and set up its command post in Shifa hospital. That way if Israel attacked you could accuse it of war crimes and since it didn't you were safe and could run your war from there. And you probably don't even have to worry about the Western media picking up the story.]
Finally, a recent report by Human Rights Watch--a group known for its hostility to Israel--shows that more than 130 Palestinians (and that is probably a vast underestimate) have either been murdered or maimed (deliberately shot in an arm or leg to crippled them) because, in the former case, they supported the Palestinian Authority and, in the latter case, they merely criticized Hamas.
[See a new postscript about the latest statements of Hamas]
By Jonathan Spyer
A meeting was meant to take place April 23 in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, adjoining the House of Commons in London. The planned meeting, entitled "Talk with Hamas," featured that group's most powerful leader, Khaled Mashal, speaking from Damascus to an audience of parliament member and journalists.
But he never spoke because the video conference link didn't work. Still, the fact that the meeting was being held at all is the important point, and it shows the workings of the pro-Hamas lobby in London, and the West more generally.
This meeting was the latest event in an ongoing and organized campaign to break the Western boycott of Hamas and transform policy toward the organization. Much energy is being expended in the UK. But London is only a way station, with the real prize being the transformation of the US stance.
In turn, this campaign is part of a larger effort to change the way that the West sees Islamist movements - and by doing so to bring many of the arguments made by such movements into the mainstream.
Who is behind this effort? The invitation came from the office of Independent Member of Parliament Clare Short.
However, it was issued in the name of John, Lord Alderdice. This name immediately offers a pointer. Alderdice, a veteran Northern Irish politician, is head of the board of advisers of an organization called Conflicts Forum.
Conflicts Forum is jointly led by Alistair Crooke and Mark Perry. Crooke is a former British intelligence officer, while the US-based Perry is described by the organization's website as a "military, intelligence and foreign affairs analyst." It describes its aim as opening "a new relationship between the West and the Muslim world."
What this anodyne phrase means in practice is revealed in a remarkably frank document published by this group, in which it explains the means it intends to use to bring about the basic change in perception that will bring Hamas and Hizbullah into the mainstream.
The document notes the need to build a "link-up between activist groups and mobilizers of opinion in order to shift the debate on Islamism from a predominantly defensive posture to a positive assertion of Islamist values and thinking."
It suggests, "Articulation of Hamas's and Hizballah's values, philosophy and wider political and social programs....Being more proactive in statements and rephrasing discourse to focus on the positive aspects of Islamist ideology."
The Conflicts' Forum publication lays down a precise strategy for promoting Hamas and Hizbullah. The various public relations' devices include:
"Use influential individuals--key Muslim personalities...use the Internet, DVD, interviews, podcasts....Link with mass organizations in Western countries--social movements, trade unions - to challenge hegemonic discourse. Approach editors of established journals... with a view to the possibility of them doing a special issue on Islamist thinking or on particular issues."
Undoubtedly, the attempted video link between Hamas HQ in Damascus and the Grimond Room in Portcullis House was meant to be a worthy contribution to this extensive effort to "re-brand" Hamas and Hizballah.
The UK, and the EU as a whole, remain committed to the Quartet conditions which Hamas must meet to become a partner for dialogue. Hamas (or at least its "military wing") remains on the EU list of proscribed terror organizations.
A cursory observation of the backers of Conflicts' Forum, however, reveals a curious paradox. In January 2007, the group proudly announced that it had been awarded a grant of €500,000 by the EU, to develop "more inclusive and legitimate approaches to transforming the Middle East conflict." More specifically, the project entails the "engagement" of "faith-based movements."
So the EU, while currently opposing "engagement" with Hamas, also appears to be offering financial support to a body engaged in lobbying for the organization.
How important are the efforts of Conflicts Forum and its associated groups? Are initiatives such as Wednesday's planned meeting likely to have a tangible effect on policy?
Britain has, of course, already announced that it intends to hold talks with Hizbullah. On Hamas, however, no immediate significant shift in British government policy looks likely.
The Hamas Lobby is busy and active. It encompasses former senior diplomats such as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, as well as the Conflicts Forum nexus.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband has praised the Egyptian role in managing dialogue with Hamas in the following terms: "Others speak to Hamas. That's the right thing to do, and I think we should let the Egyptians take this forward."
A knowledgeable source noted that many in the Foreign Office consider that engagement with the group is a "matter of time."
Still, for as long as the United States remains firmly committed to insisting that Hamas first abide by the three Quartet conditions (committing to nonviolence, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous agreements and obligations), the UK is unlikely to break ranks openly. Differences might well surface if a Palestinian coalition government that included Hams were to be formed. But this currently looks highly improbable.
Ultimately, the main obstacle to the success of Lord Alderdice, Clare Short and their friends in Conflicts' Forum may well be the nature of their client. Hamas leaders have an unfortunate tendency to be candid regarding their movement's goals. This makes presenting the "positive aspects of Islamist ideology" something of a challenge.
Hamas "Foreign Minister" Mahmoud Zahar, for example, speaking last week, stated bluntly that "[Hamas] will never recognize the enemy [Israel] in any way, shape or form."
A few months ago, the same speaker asserted that "they [Jews] have legitimized the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine....They have legitimized the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
Spinning statements of that kind into moderation would pose a challenge to the smoothest of PR operators. But as the planned Portcullis House meeting showed, Hamas possesses an experienced, well-oiled, well-funded (largely by the European taxpayer) lobby in the heart of London.
Dr. Jonathan Spyer, senior fellow, is my colleague at our GLORIA Center
Postscript [from Barry Rubin]: Just as distinguished and very well-mannered British apologists for Hamas were holding a meeting explaining that Hamas is misunderstood, the group continues its openly antisemitic and genocidal rhetoric. See for yourself.
In a recent booklet entitled The Zionist Holocaust, here is what Hamas has to say:
Page 10: "that country, the one called `Israel'...believes only in killing and destruction...some of its principles are endless fighting, shedding blood and corruption. For the Jews, all men are flocks of lambs [i.e., fit for slaughter], while only they [the Jews] are fit to live ...”
Page 221: The Palestinians have only two options, to surrender or wiping out Israel and the Jews.
Oh and the Introduction is written by Ismail Haniya, who is often referred to as a "moderate" and the leader of Hamas's "political wing."
[Memo to Haniya: That was very clever of you to hide the Hamas leadership and set up its command post in Shifa hospital. That way if Israel attacked you could accuse it of war crimes and since it didn't you were safe and could run your war from there. And you probably don't even have to worry about the Western media picking up the story.]
Finally, a recent report by Human Rights Watch--a group known for its hostility to Israel--shows that more than 130 Palestinians (and that is probably a vast underestimate) have either been murdered or maimed (deliberately shot in an arm or leg to crippled them) because, in the former case, they supported the Palestinian Authority and, in the latter case, they merely criticized Hamas.
Updated: Memo to British Government: Dar al-Harb Isn't Arabic For House of Lords
It’s been a busy time for British policymakers. First, they announced they are going to begin contacts with Hizballah’s “non-military wing.”
Next, they attended the Durban-2 meeting, walking out for a few minutes during Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech, then returning to approve a resolution which precisely mirrored the Iranian regime’s political line.
And then, rather than rest on their laurels, a group of British parliamentarians invited Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to address--albeit through modern long-distance technology--a meeting at Parliament.
[Update: There is some justice. After several speeches by those present in London about how wonderful Hamas is--leaving out the calls for genocide against Jews, the expulsion of Gaza Christians, and the murder of Fatah supporters, among other things--the telephone link-up with Damascus (where Mashal lives protected by the Syrian dictatorship) didn't work!]
Having written about two of these events, let me not leave out Her Majesty’s Government’s dialogue with the radical, Shia Islamist Lebanese group Hizballah, an organization that is a client of Iran and Syria, and which has used terrorism as one of its main tactics.
This step is supposedly acceptable because the British government will be targeting--perhaps not the best choice of words since it is Hizballah that really targets people—Hizballah legislators.
The goal is to talk to Hizballah members of the Lebanese parliament allegedly to get them to encourage their organization to abandon violence and play a constructive political role in Lebanon.
This approach is based on the assumption, of course, that parliamentarians are parliamentarians, friendly, outgoing chaps who know how to kiss babies and slap backs in the local constituency. This, however, misreads what Hizballah is about.
Yes, Hizballah is a political party but that’s where the similarity to the Labour or Conservative parties ends. The name gives it way. At least historically, the Labour party is supposed to represent workers; the Conservative party those who are either better-off or favor the historical status quo more.
But Hizballah means, in Arabic, literally, the Party of God. That’s who they represent, or think they do, and their purported constituent is a bit harder to please than the trade unions and the local gentry or greengrocers.
And the Hizballah parliamentary delegation is called the Loyalty to the Resistance group. Resistance has become the codeword for the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent (a nice word for terrorist) bloc which seeks to promote Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East. What are they resisting? Peace and moderation. Who are they resisting? America, Israel and the West. How are they resisting? Assassinations, car-bombs, kidnappings, and suicide attacks are high on the list of favored tactics.
Of course, Hizballah like other revolutionary Islamists has social welfare programs. But the purpose of these is to build its mass base so it can seize power, and then to do all the things it wants to do .
Having tea with Hizballah parliamentarians is sort of like breaking bread with the elected members from Stalinist Communist parties or fascist parties of the past. While you’re breaking bread, their doctrines are all for breaking heads. Hizballah is led by clerics and gunmen (perhaps that’s what is meant by the division into political and military wings). The Honourable Member from south Sidon is not making the decisions or influencing party policy.
Even if Hizballah plays a political role within Lebanon it is hardly likely to be a constructive one. Their goals include: turning Lebanon (or at least the Shia parts of it) into an Islamist society; welcoming Iranian-Syrian hegemony over the country; wiping out Israel violently; expelling Western influence; spreading Islamic jihad elsewhere; and such things.
For Hizballah the word "constructive" means constructing a caliphate.
This is a naïve approach to say the least. And of course such actions are read by Lebanese as Western support for Hizballah so the opposition might as well give up and the faint-hearted jump on the Syrian-Iranian bandwagon. Arab states look on such antics as crazy. Why help your worst enemy take power? No wonder they believe in Western conspiracies. The alternative would be to believe that the West is insane.
Next, they attended the Durban-2 meeting, walking out for a few minutes during Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech, then returning to approve a resolution which precisely mirrored the Iranian regime’s political line.
And then, rather than rest on their laurels, a group of British parliamentarians invited Hamas leader Khaled Mashal to address--albeit through modern long-distance technology--a meeting at Parliament.
[Update: There is some justice. After several speeches by those present in London about how wonderful Hamas is--leaving out the calls for genocide against Jews, the expulsion of Gaza Christians, and the murder of Fatah supporters, among other things--the telephone link-up with Damascus (where Mashal lives protected by the Syrian dictatorship) didn't work!]
Having written about two of these events, let me not leave out Her Majesty’s Government’s dialogue with the radical, Shia Islamist Lebanese group Hizballah, an organization that is a client of Iran and Syria, and which has used terrorism as one of its main tactics.
This step is supposedly acceptable because the British government will be targeting--perhaps not the best choice of words since it is Hizballah that really targets people—Hizballah legislators.
The goal is to talk to Hizballah members of the Lebanese parliament allegedly to get them to encourage their organization to abandon violence and play a constructive political role in Lebanon.
This approach is based on the assumption, of course, that parliamentarians are parliamentarians, friendly, outgoing chaps who know how to kiss babies and slap backs in the local constituency. This, however, misreads what Hizballah is about.
Yes, Hizballah is a political party but that’s where the similarity to the Labour or Conservative parties ends. The name gives it way. At least historically, the Labour party is supposed to represent workers; the Conservative party those who are either better-off or favor the historical status quo more.
But Hizballah means, in Arabic, literally, the Party of God. That’s who they represent, or think they do, and their purported constituent is a bit harder to please than the trade unions and the local gentry or greengrocers.
And the Hizballah parliamentary delegation is called the Loyalty to the Resistance group. Resistance has become the codeword for the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent (a nice word for terrorist) bloc which seeks to promote Islamist revolution throughout the Middle East. What are they resisting? Peace and moderation. Who are they resisting? America, Israel and the West. How are they resisting? Assassinations, car-bombs, kidnappings, and suicide attacks are high on the list of favored tactics.
Of course, Hizballah like other revolutionary Islamists has social welfare programs. But the purpose of these is to build its mass base so it can seize power, and then to do all the things it wants to do .
Having tea with Hizballah parliamentarians is sort of like breaking bread with the elected members from Stalinist Communist parties or fascist parties of the past. While you’re breaking bread, their doctrines are all for breaking heads. Hizballah is led by clerics and gunmen (perhaps that’s what is meant by the division into political and military wings). The Honourable Member from south Sidon is not making the decisions or influencing party policy.
Even if Hizballah plays a political role within Lebanon it is hardly likely to be a constructive one. Their goals include: turning Lebanon (or at least the Shia parts of it) into an Islamist society; welcoming Iranian-Syrian hegemony over the country; wiping out Israel violently; expelling Western influence; spreading Islamic jihad elsewhere; and such things.
For Hizballah the word "constructive" means constructing a caliphate.
This is a naïve approach to say the least. And of course such actions are read by Lebanese as Western support for Hizballah so the opposition might as well give up and the faint-hearted jump on the Syrian-Iranian bandwagon. Arab states look on such antics as crazy. Why help your worst enemy take power? No wonder they believe in Western conspiracies. The alternative would be to believe that the West is insane.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
UK and Hamas: Political Wing? It's the Bloody Beak!
UK and Hamas: Political Wing? It's the Bloody Beak!
By Barry Rubin
Naturally, I was censorious when the UK government said it was going to meet with the political wing of Hizballah. But they've done even worse now with Hamas. All the main contacts with that organization so far are with Khalid Mashal who is:
1. The closest thing the organization--"political" and "military" wings--have to an overall leader. It's like meeting with Usama bin Ladin on the pretext of engaging with the al-Qaida "political wing."
2. He is the most hard-line leader of the group. This is not to say that the others are great moderates but if you are going to pretend to be encouraging the less genocidal (and the difference is minimal) why empower the worst of them? One more proof that the engagement racket is precisely that.
And what's the effect? It convinces Hamas (or Hizballah, or Iran, or Syria, or the Muslim Brotherhood, for that matter) that they can go on doing precisely what they've been doing and receive Western concessions and even surrender. It is the opposite of a policy that will bring moderation. It's a strategy that will ensure there won't be any.
By Barry Rubin
Naturally, I was censorious when the UK government said it was going to meet with the political wing of Hizballah. But they've done even worse now with Hamas. All the main contacts with that organization so far are with Khalid Mashal who is:
1. The closest thing the organization--"political" and "military" wings--have to an overall leader. It's like meeting with Usama bin Ladin on the pretext of engaging with the al-Qaida "political wing."
2. He is the most hard-line leader of the group. This is not to say that the others are great moderates but if you are going to pretend to be encouraging the less genocidal (and the difference is minimal) why empower the worst of them? One more proof that the engagement racket is precisely that.
And what's the effect? It convinces Hamas (or Hizballah, or Iran, or Syria, or the Muslim Brotherhood, for that matter) that they can go on doing precisely what they've been doing and receive Western concessions and even surrender. It is the opposite of a policy that will bring moderation. It's a strategy that will ensure there won't be any.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
