The Terrorist Whose Daughter Was Cured

Please be subscriber 16,955. 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

This is a remarkable story in human terms but there is an extremely important point for understanding the Middle East embedded in it as well.

On June 14, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on a police car travelling on a road, en route from Beersheba to Jerusalem. One policeman, Yeheshua Sofer was killed. Two others were wounded. Sofer was due to be married in three months. It took a month but members of the cell were finally captured. They spoke quite freely about this attack and others they had planned for killing Israelis.

During the interrogation, one of the leaders remarked that only two weeks earlier his six-year-old daughter had been given a free operation in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem to remove a tumor from her eye. The operation had been paid for by an Israeli organization.

Reading this, I recall a number of similar past instances. In one famous case, the Palestinian who later attacked Israel had been saved from injuries inflicted by another Palestinian in a quarrel. There have also been examples of terrorists playing on the sympathy of Israelis claiming they needed medical attention--especially in one bloody attack on the Gaza-Israel border--not to mention the use of women and children to smuggle weapons or even to carry out suicide attacks.

The Western reader--if he doesn't go in for some elaborate theory in which somehow Israel is still to blame--might see this and other such cases as examples of human ingratitude, the kind of thing often found in private life. There is also a psychiatric explanation: the person involved is in some way deranged, causing him to behave in an "illogical" manner.

Yet beyond irony and insanity, both falling short of the needed explanation, this kind of situation is important because it challenges the common Western theme of kindness and concession as inevitably leading to moderation and peace. There is another misleading flip side of this view, too: the concept that what seems like inexplicable violence or "fanaticism" is a direct response to ill treatment.

Thus, for those locked into the kindness breeds kindness model (which often does work in personal life), terrorists must be shown to be suffering from poverty or personal suffering (even though statistics show this to be untrue) or understandable outrage at bad treatment (ignoring the possibility of their engaging in alternative behavior, like making a compromise peace or building a democratic society).

Yet the main missing explanation explaining such behavior is ideology and world view. If you think that the divine being has ordered you to wipe out Israel and the Jews (or Christians and the West also), if you have no self-critical facility whatsoever, if you believe (and are told by the West) that you are always a victim, if you put a priority on revenge rather than improving your situation, and if you view your opponent as sub-human (racism is more frequently deployed by elements in some parts of the "Third World" against the West than vice-versa nowadays, whatever was true in the past), then your conscience will be untroubled by having your daughter healed as a gift and trying to kill the maximum number of Israelis thereafter.

Where have things been different? Obviously, one can insist on one's dignity and right to have a country of one's own without developing such behavior. We have seen this in dozens of cases over previous decades. You don't have to invoke such names s Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Gandhi in this case. Quite average nationalist leaders far from sainthood have pulled it off repeatedly.

Indeed, such an approach is not only more moral but more effective. After all, if you are willing to compromise with your opponent, the latter might be more willing and able to give you more of what you want. If the Palestinian movement had adopted such an approach--which is still lacking to this day--there would have been a Palestinian Arab state in 1948 (UN partition), or in 1979 (Anwar al-Sadat peace initiative) or in 2000 (Camp David/Clinton plan), or at many other times in history.

Of course, there are cases--fewer but genuine--of individual Palestinians saving the lives of Israelis who would otherwise have been murdered. But here's the catch: those people have to hide their identities from other Palestinians while to kill Israeli children deliberately, even in 2010, makes one a hero.

Moreover, it is also misleading to conclude that people want to wipe out Israel because it is doing something so horrible--that there is a proportionality at work here--as to justify such treatment. Again, the problem lies in the ideology and worldview of the radicals, as well as their expectation of total victory, that drives the process. Israelis as a whole discovered this between 1992 and 2000. Sympathy, an attempt to provide a balanced narrative, aid, payments, concessions, compromises, offers all failed. Indeed, not only did they fail but in many respects these actions made things worse--at least more dangerous--for those who tried that method.

One of the times I came closer to being killed so far was when an Arab driver returning from taking supplies to the Gaza Strip or bringing workers into Israel so they could make living smuggled in a suicide terrorist. Six months after the day I saw the dead killed by that attack in the street around the corner from my home, a high-ranking U.S. diplomat told me--with pomposity and a slur on Israel that would have marked him as a vicious antisemite if he weren't a Jewish careerist--that no terrorist had ever come into Israel that way.

Incidentally, and this is an absolutely true story, the day before the March 1996 bombing, I had passed by a woman in full Islamist dress (by no means normally dressed for an Israeli Arab Muslim woman who might merely wear modest clothing and a hijab) outside the Dizengoff Center mall looking at the door (and possibly checking out the security) about 20 yards from where the suicide bomber blew himself up some hours later. I thought to myself: what a great democratic and open country this is that in the midst of a terrorist bombing campaign she could walk through Tel Aviv without anyone bothering her in the least. I wondered later if this was coincidental or part of the terrorist operation. If you want to compare the reality of Israel from the way it is portrayed in biased media and academic writings, ponder that story.

These stories are in no way to say that you don't treat children with eye tumors, or not let people make a living or send in supplies, or look askance at people merely because they belong to a specific national or religious group.

But you also don't let wishful thinking take over your mind and don't let hopes of gratitude bolster your expectations in an irrational manner.

And you never ever strengthen individuals or organizations who want to kill you and wipe you out on the basis of believing that generosity will make them moderate.

This basic calculus, of course, does not apply just to Israel's situation but to a West facing attacks by revolutionary Islamists--including the September 11 terrorists and those in Britain's tube or Spain's railroad attacks--as well. The idea that compromises, concessions, flattery, and gifts are going to buy popularity or immunity will simply not work.

Note to Western leaders, academics, and journalists reading this: Remember to condemn the people who commit deliberate terrorist murders and refuse to make real peace, not the ones who operate for free on the "enemy" side's children and take risky concessions to try to achieve peace.

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.

No, Israel Is Not About to Attack Iran Now, Here's Why

This article was published by PajamasMedia using their title. I want to make it clear that in saying "will" Israel attack Iran, they are giving a headline to an article saying that this is not going to happen in the near future. I'm not saying it will never happen.

Please be subscriber 16,951. 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

How do you know someone has no idea what they’re talking about? Answer: They predict that Israel is about to attack Iran.

From the perspective of people in Israel who are closely following these issues, this idea is ridiculous. Understanding why this is so tells us a great deal about the situation.

First, it is too early to consider such an option in strategic terms. As long as Iran has not completed its effort to obtain nuclear weapons, the less there is to be gained by destroying uncompleted facilities or processes that are not yet at their full capacity. The earlier one attacks, the easier it is for the Iranian regime to rebuild.

Second, the whole Israeli strategy has been based on winning the maximum amount of Western support against the Iranian nuclear program. Israel worked hard to encourage the United States and the Europeans to put tough sanctions on Iran. Now we are in the sanctions’ era and these governments want to see whether the sanctions are going to have any effect.

Clearly, they are hurting the Iranian regime. People often don’t understand the purposes for imposing international sanctions. Ideally, the goal is to change the behavior of the targeted regime. But that’s not all. Sanctions are supposed to reduce the ability of an enemy regime to do what it wants to do. The fewer assets Iran has, the less it can put into military efforts.

In addition, the pressure of sanctions is to open up splits within the regime’s leadership and between the regime and the population. The people ask: Why are we suffering? Because of bad leadership and policies. Other members of the elite ask: Why are the top rulers and their policies leading us toward the regime’s downfall and the loss of our wealth and power?

This is happening to some extent in Iran today.

Moreover, sanctions are intended to isolate the regime, so that it loses allies and trading partners. This is happening to a lesser extent, because the U.S. government is in effect making a deal with Russia, China, Turkey, and Brazil to break the sanctions in exchange for giving them formal support.

Will sanctions stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Almost certainly, the answer is “no.” Yet, from Israel’s standpoint, this effort must be given every chance. Only if the Western countries are satisfied that every diplomatic and sanctions’-related effort has been fully tried—and very probably not even then!—would they support military action.

A third factor is a fundamental reality of international affairs: there is no compelling reason for Israel to act now and it has other problems to deal with. Iran’s obtaining a deliverable nuclear weapon is at least two, probably three, and perhaps four years off. Why do something now? There’s no motive to do so. The idea that something must or will be done immediately is a fiction among those who really don’t know much about the situation but perhaps have a thirst for action, a hunger for some decisive event that will easily and neatly solve the whole problem with one blow.

Leaders want to postpone tough decisions where the possibility of a catastrophic mistake as long as possible and one can hardly blame them.

Fourth, even if Israel wanted to attack now—which it doesn’t—such an action would not enjoy U.S. support and cooperation. During the current period, U.S.-Israel relations are very shaky, despite the fact that they are all right at this particular moment, though for how long is an open question. The Obama Administration tends to oppose the use of force, deplore unilateralism, dislike taking a strong lead, and seeks to distance itself from Israel more than was true for its predecessors.

If the decision of a lowly local zoning board in Jerusalem to build a few apartment buildings set off a huge storm in bilateral relations, what would an Israeli attack on Iran do?

Don’t forget, too, that U.S. troops are in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with periodic hints from the U.S. side that precipitate Israeli action could endanger them. Yet two or three years from now, those soldiers, or almost all of them, will be gone from the region. If that is going to coincide with Iran getting nuclear weapons, all the more reason to wait.

Finally, there are an increasing number of voices in the Israeli political, military, and intelligence establishment arguing that Israel should not wage a preemptive attack on Iran at all for a variety of reasons. When one adds up all these factors, it is rather clear that no such attack is imminent.

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.

New York Times: Not Just Anti-Israel But Pro-Islamist.

By Barry Rubin

The New York Times--with the exception of some honorable reporters in the field (you know who you are)--never ceases to amaze one in the spectacularly biased writings of those back at headquarters. Here's one that's particularly remarkable, a real piece of advocacy in which the reporter does everything possible to justify flotilla ships trying to run the blockade of the Gaza Strip.

He also selectively discusses the IHH sponsor of the previous flotilla, leaving out all the evidence (presented in my articles and elsewhere) of its radical and terrorist connections, including U.S. court documents. I explained this for the Times more than five weeks ago but they paid no attention and they still cannot find any of this evidence!

The article even includes a pro-IHH video without any balancing video, of which a number are easily available. There is virtually no hint that the militants on board had earlier shouted slogans advocating genocide for Jews, declared their intention to be Jihad martyrs, or attacked and kidnapped the arriving soldiers.

In addition, this article was written after Germany banned the IHH's local branch for supporting terrorism but doesn't even mention this fact. (Yes, I know the German government said it was a separate group but that is a purely formal organizational point.)

And on top of that the article was also written after the terms of the blockade were changed, with the approval of the U.S. government and personal endorsement of President Barack Obama no less. These new regulations only exclude military and dual-use items. There is no mention of the fact that circumstances have changed and thus any new flotilla ship can hardly be humanitarian since there is no limit on consumer goods.

Nor does it mention that the purpose of the flotillas--even before, but most obviously now--is not to help the people of Gaza but to ensure the easy import of weapons and militarily useful goods for a radical, antisemitic, anti-American repressive regime that opposes a two-state solution and openly proclaims its intention of committing genocide on Israel's Jews.

If this kind of thing appeared on a left-wing blog (or an Iranian or Syrian newspaper) it would at least not be surprising. But this is the New York Times. I no longer write a response like this one to correct errors in the Times coverage, but rather to point out that this is not the great newspaper (whatever its flaws) that once was considered America's best. It is, at least on issues concerning Israel (again with honorable exceptions) a propaganda sheet, a shill for totalitarian and mendacious forces.

For other examples, see the Times' remarkably deceptive portrayal of an Egyptian antisemitic extremist as a moderate, or the imbalance in its op-ed page. If you want to read a serious, balanced, full-service print newspaper pick up the Washington Post instead.

Are there still journalism classes where an article like this would be presented as a horrendously bad example of what newspapers should do?

Note: If you want to think you're helping Palestinians, promoting peace, and being fair--or even being merely moderately anti-Israel--at least have the decency to back the Palestinian Authority (PA) and oppose Hamas. The PA is corrupt, still riddled with radical elements, sometimes involved in terrorism, and unready for a real two-state solution. But at least, unlike Hamas, it isn't a client of Iran intent on maximizing terrorism, subverting all non-radical Arab regimes, indifferent to the well-being of its own people, crushing women's rights, expelling Christians, destroying American influence in the region, deliberately endngering civilians for propaganda purposes, seeking war at the earliest possible opportunity, and intent on committing genocide.

Israel is a Normal Country. But Normal Countries Are Becoming an Endangered Species

Please be subscriber 16,951. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The latest gimmick in the never-ending discussion over Israel is whether it is a “normal country.” My answer is “yes” with one exception: it is the one country in the world on which people who know absolutely nothing feel free to put forward the most absurd, biased, or outdated views. Yet that is an external, not an internal distinction.

To be frank, the question of whether Israel is a “normal country” is a trick question. As I said, the answer is “yes” but the problem is that the definition of what a normal country is has changed.

For example, it is now held to be evil and racist—rather than merely stupid—if a country doesn’t allow unlimited immigration, even illegal immigration—of anyone who wants to live there. It is now claimed to be illegitimate if a country has any religious component, or if it is identified with a single coherent people. A country that defends itself or perhaps even has enemies is labeled abnormal, too.

What is remarkable about the demonization of Israel today is that it combines two different and profoundly contradictory strands that look amazingly strange in the conditions of this era.

The first is that of the old pseudo-leftist radicalism of the 1960s-1970s era in which Israel was portrayed in semi-Marxist language as imperialist, aggressive, evil, and to be wiped out even in genocidal fashion.

The second is that of the 1990s’ peace process era in which the Palestinians are portrayed as moderate, yearning only for peace and a state of their own and Israel falsely portrays the situation as one of great threats to itself.

Issue number one is that those two “narratives” haven’t been introduced to each other. How do those in the second group—including Jewish opponents of Israel—reconcile themselves with the first group, who are after all the people they are supporting.

Issue number two is that this is the era of Hamas, Hizballah, Ahmadinejad, September 11, the bombing of the London underground and bus, and therefore the nature of the threat and extremism is most apparent.

Perhaps, then, the people in the second group should pay some attention to their allies and the goals they are pursuing, the situation in the Middle East, and other such things. You don’t need to listen to what Israel is saying so much as to listen to what those who hate and want to destroy it are saying.

[Note by the way that Israel is among the world's most successful countries for integrating people from very diverse socio-economic background, racial appearance, differences in level of religious observance, and national origin. Of course, these people had an identity in common and were integrated into a new society and culture--it is now argued with too much harshness in the state's early years--quite well. The model of normality some are attempting to impose now, however, is to take in people without limit and deliberately not integrate them but to leave them as separate communities with a minimum in common. This will ultimately lead to their being mutually hostile communities.]

Of course, none of this is applied to non-Western nations, countries quite content to have a single people (or at least a single dominating group), common culture, main religion, and strict control over who becomes a citizen. They may use against foreigners and for their own benefit the tools of words like "racism," "Islamophobia," and "multi-culturalism" but they are not stupid. They intend to survive.

These countries and ideologies are, in fact, more racist and xenophobic--but never criticize themselves or are criticized as such--than the countries always criticized as allegedly racist and xenophobic.

As I have previously remarked here, this factor of changing definition explains both why many love Israel in the West and why many hate it. The phrase “canary in the coal mine”--something that warns about imminent contemporary threats and dangers, is often used to express this point about Israel. But there are other canaries in the coal mine—Lebanon, Georgia—whose falling over is being ignored. Israel, because it can and will defend itself, is the eagle in the coal mine.

World War One was called the war to make the world safe for democracy. Today's war against Israel is one to make the world unsafe for democracy and the nation-state. To the extent that those in Western democratic states join it, they may ultimately end up being neither Western nor democratic over time.

One should not exaggerate the problem in the West but it is a considerable one, the greatest internal challenge most have faced since 1945. The medicine prescribed for modern countries by large elements of their elites is not a vitamin but a suicide pill. As the dosage increases and the patient starts to exhibit unpleasant symptoms, he may realize what is happening and punch the incompetent or ill-intentioned doctor in the nose.

In my introduction to our new book, Israel: An Introduction, to be published in February by Yale University Press (inquiries welcome for using it as a text in high school, college, and adult education courses), my main theme is that when one gets beyond the political turmoil—which looks a lot more abstract when one actually lives in Israel—the country is quite normal and very much of a success story. That doesn’t mean it has no unique features of its own, but that’s true for every country on closer examination.

One of those features is the Israeli love of self-criticism (the true national sport) and reflection. But that factor which many (especially in the Arabic-speaking world) see as a weakness is in fact a strength. For these qualities make it possible to correct mistakes and fix problems to a greater extent.

Of course, there are still many problems and shortcomings which I could list at length—see, I told you!—but that’s true for all countries even if they are swept under the rug. Indeed, sweeping real problems and practical solutions under the rug is the hallmark of a score of other countries in the region.

I wasn’t joking in this article's first paragraph saying that the main “abnormality” is the nonsense said and written about Israel. David Ben-Gurion expressed the fundamental pragmatism that would shape the country when he said, to put it into contemporary language, that what's most important was not what the other nations said but what the Israelis did. Still true today.

Perhaps there should be a Normal Country Movement for those who don’t want to be reduced to mere geographical dimensions, housing within themselves a Balkan cacophony of countries and nations certain to quarrel. That’s a recipe for conflict, not of living happily ever after. When people ask me if I worry about Israel’s survival, my answer is: No, I’m worried about the survival of everyone else.

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.

News Flash: Using My Testimony, Court Fines North Korea $378 Million

By Barry Rubin

A Puerto Rican court has awarded $378 million to the relatives of people killed in the 1972 terrorist attack on Israel’s airport. I was the chief witness at the trial to explain and document the connections between the Japanese Red Army, which carried out the attack, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and North Korea, the state sponsor for the attack. See here and here.

Attacks like this continue to this day--and attempts are made every day--sponsored by Iran, Syria, and other states while the murderous efforts are implemented by groups like Hamas, Hizballah, and even Fatah. One wonders whether they will have their day in court, too, and be subjected once again to the isolation and contempt that they deserve. The present moment is featuring large amounts of sympathy for the perpetrators, diplomatic engagement, and constantly criticizing their victims.

Even now, the British prime minister is in Washington trying to explain how one of the Libyan murderers of scores of Americans and others in the Lockerbie plane bombing was released on “compassionate” grounds on the claim that he was dying, only to make a “miraculous” recovery on reaching Libya. Remarkably, this release coincided with a big oil deal between Libya and a British company called BP, maybe you've heard of it.

Western intellectuals and experts are clamoring for engagement with Hamas and Hizballah even though the blood is not even dried on their hands. At the UN, the sponsors of terrorism and their friends have far more power than their targets. And attacks are carried out with more cleverness in an era of profound credulity, so that Hamas can start a war and use human shields only to reap benefits, while the Turkish regime organizes a theatrical jihad attack of which even video tape of the event is not considered proof by many for what actually happened.
Such anarchy in wonderland the world cannot long endure.