Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
It's Not the First Time Syria is Behind a Lebanese/Israel Conflict
The Lebanese Army took responsibility for Tuesdays attack on an routine Israeli patrol, that left Israeli Lt Col. Hariri and three Lebanese soldiers dead. While violence on the Northern border is common, this event was unique for two reasons. First it was the most violent incident since the 2006 war, instigated by Hezbollah, that left Beirut in ruins, and caused thousands of Lebanese and Israeli casualties. Second, the UN actually laid the blame on Lebanon. No one disputes the narrative. The IDF was cutting down a tree on the internationally recognized Israeli side of the blue line after having informed the Lebanese of their intentions to do so. The Lebanese responded that they dispute this blue line and that they warned Israel.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Soft drinks, Circumcision, and Burka’s: Beware of the slippery slope!
In light of the accelerating burka bans sweeping across Europe and parts of the Arab world, I decided to resurrect this post.
One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope". For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next -perhaps red meat?
However, the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere. Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We, the healthy consumers who enjoy the occasional steak, should not be surprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. Four major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban burkas (burqa or burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even in Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women (update: Syria passed a law banning burkas in universities).
Why? France's president Sarkozy summed it up when he stated that "the burkas message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notions of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. Whats wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the burka nor the extremism it represents.
Second, this is of real concern to all of us.
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son. Additionally, a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both these cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. What's next, no Shabbos-observance on Saturday or crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit, create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope". For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next -perhaps red meat?
However, the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere. Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.
And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We, the healthy consumers who enjoy the occasional steak, should not be surprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!
Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. Four major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban burkas (burqa or burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even in Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women (update: Syria passed a law banning burkas in universities).
Why? France's president Sarkozy summed it up when he stated that "the burkas message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notions of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.
1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. Whats wrong with banning the Islamist burka?
First of all I am not a fan of the burka nor the extremism it represents.
Second, this is of real concern to all of us.
In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son. Additionally, a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both these cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. What's next, no Shabbos-observance on Saturday or crucifixes around the neck?
The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit, create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!
Monday, May 3, 2010
Understanding Syria
Once a mainstay of the pan-Arab consensus, Syria’s relationship with its neighbors has taken an expected turn. Over the past 5 years Syria has become the only major Arab ally of Iran; despite the fact that Iran aims for hegemonic dominance of the Middle East. At the same time, Syria has moved closer to another non-Arab power in the region, Turkey. As evidenced by recent joint military drills.
One way to understand Syria’s present and future behavior is reflecting on its recent history.
In 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1981 Syria joined other Arab nations in their war on Israel, and failed. It watched as Egypt and then Jordan made peace with Israel, but refused to do the same. Ostensibly because Israel held the Golan Heights, ignoring the fact that Israel has shown its willingness to return captured land for peace. This split was publicly affirmed when Israel destroyed Iran’s nuclear reactor in Syria territory. No Arab nation came to their aid; on the contrary the Arab world silently applauded the implicit Iranian defeat. Syria seeing the lack of Arab support moved even closer to its non-Arab neighbors.
It is important to note that the Arab world has a historically ambivalent, if not hostile relationship with Iran. Iran is a Shia theocracy historically rooted in rejection of Arab Sunnism. At the same time Turkey is viewed through the eyes of an Arab world subjected to Ottoman imperialism, albeit Muslim, for over 400 years.
Yet Syria has seen its relationship with its Arab brothers as failed and even counterproductive. Failed because pan-Arabism has failed - most of the Arab world agrees. Counterproductive because Syria correctly understands that’s its alignment with the Arabs requires them to subject their national aims to larger Arab-league sentiment. The thrust of that sentiment is formed by a teetering Secular Egypt and the Gulf States love affair with elitist capitalism -the Arabs current position is stability first.
The way Syria sees it, whereas the Arab world, failed in its war against Israel, and was quiet while it was attacked, Iran and Turkey will not abandon them and will serve as an even bigger stopgap then the former Soviet Union –as Syria will be placed under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. Syria’s behavior as the regions lapdog is historically consistent. It was Egypt’s minority partner for 30 years. Egypt no longer maintains that position, and the Russians are not nearly as supportive as the failed Soviets; Syria has reason to move on.
The implications of this shift are made relevant only by the effort to isolate a belligerent and increasingly dangerous Iran. Obama’s overtures, like his decision to return an American ambassador to Syria, as well as failed Western efforts to foster Syria’s reintegration with the Arab consensus, reflect that. Syria has watched the war-fatigued west and is positioning them to be the preferred ally of what they perceive to be the future rulers of the Middle East. The interesting point here is that instead of learning lessons from the past as the Arabs have, they are predictably repeating them. Did they finally make the right bet? Only time will tell.
One way to understand Syria’s present and future behavior is reflecting on its recent history.
In 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1981 Syria joined other Arab nations in their war on Israel, and failed. It watched as Egypt and then Jordan made peace with Israel, but refused to do the same. Ostensibly because Israel held the Golan Heights, ignoring the fact that Israel has shown its willingness to return captured land for peace. This split was publicly affirmed when Israel destroyed Iran’s nuclear reactor in Syria territory. No Arab nation came to their aid; on the contrary the Arab world silently applauded the implicit Iranian defeat. Syria seeing the lack of Arab support moved even closer to its non-Arab neighbors.
It is important to note that the Arab world has a historically ambivalent, if not hostile relationship with Iran. Iran is a Shia theocracy historically rooted in rejection of Arab Sunnism. At the same time Turkey is viewed through the eyes of an Arab world subjected to Ottoman imperialism, albeit Muslim, for over 400 years.
Yet Syria has seen its relationship with its Arab brothers as failed and even counterproductive. Failed because pan-Arabism has failed - most of the Arab world agrees. Counterproductive because Syria correctly understands that’s its alignment with the Arabs requires them to subject their national aims to larger Arab-league sentiment. The thrust of that sentiment is formed by a teetering Secular Egypt and the Gulf States love affair with elitist capitalism -the Arabs current position is stability first.
The way Syria sees it, whereas the Arab world, failed in its war against Israel, and was quiet while it was attacked, Iran and Turkey will not abandon them and will serve as an even bigger stopgap then the former Soviet Union –as Syria will be placed under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. Syria’s behavior as the regions lapdog is historically consistent. It was Egypt’s minority partner for 30 years. Egypt no longer maintains that position, and the Russians are not nearly as supportive as the failed Soviets; Syria has reason to move on.
The implications of this shift are made relevant only by the effort to isolate a belligerent and increasingly dangerous Iran. Obama’s overtures, like his decision to return an American ambassador to Syria, as well as failed Western efforts to foster Syria’s reintegration with the Arab consensus, reflect that. Syria has watched the war-fatigued west and is positioning them to be the preferred ally of what they perceive to be the future rulers of the Middle East. The interesting point here is that instead of learning lessons from the past as the Arabs have, they are predictably repeating them. Did they finally make the right bet? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
