Great article out of Turkey
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turks-rise-up-against-dictators-well-some-dictators8230-2011-02-01
It’s wonderful news! Islamist Turks have finally discovered the vices of the autocratic/kleptocratic regimes of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But why do they hate Mr. Ben Ali, whose name they had not heard of until a fortnight ago, or Mr. Mubarak, whose undemocratic credentials are well older than a week?
In the Maghreb case, the Islamist Turks have just learned that the distant country with “a flag similar to our” was not run by just a dictator, but by a secular dictator. They also learned that that shameless dictator had sent into exile a man whose name they cannot remember – but anyway – that good Muslim now talks about taking the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, as a role model for democracy. Mr. Ben Ali could not have been allowed to oppress the Tunisians. In the future, Rashed Ghannoushi can because he will be “our” dictator.
And in the case of “Pharaoh” as the Turkish protestors refer to Mr. Mubarak, Islamist Turks are angry not because he has undemocratically ruled Egypt for 30 years, but because the largest Muslim nation in the region has been at peace with Israel, not at war.
It was not a coincidence that at the weekend’s anti-Mubarak demonstrations in Istanbul and Ankara, protestors carried Mr. Mubarak picture with the Star of David superimposed over it. The usual gathering of “Islamic” NGOs (this time joined by a leftist one, too) protested him for “not having flown Egyptian fighter jets to defend Gaza.” Ahmet Faruk Ünsal, secretary-general of Mazlum-Der, an “Islamic” human rights organization (how bizarre of a mission, “Islamic” human rights…) voiced a rich menu of pleasantries about Egypt’s possibly departing leader because “he guarded Israel by shutting the gates of Gaza.”
But some of the protest language was encouraging. Demonstrators in front of the Egyptian Consulate in Istanbul shouted that “they were standing for resistance against dictatorship.”
Abdurrahman Dilipak, a prominent Islamic intellectual and writer, generously talked about “our Muslim brothers who live under oppression…” The rare non-Israeli-related language at the protests gave us hope for democracy – the one that does not come with a faith-based adjective.
Now we can cultivate further hope that the Turkish Islamists may in the future rise up against all oppressive regimes – the regimes that oppress their fellow Muslims to begin with.
How about starting with our next-door neighbors, Syria and Iran? For sure, Turkish democrats should be protesting Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which he inherited by blood rather than winning at the ballot box. How about showing some solidarity when President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s guards systematically kill dissidents including, most recently, Zahra Bahrami, who was arrested after taking part in anti-government protests and was hanged for “drug possession and smuggling.” Beware, Iranian diplomatic missions, next time Mazlum-Der and Mr. Dilipak may show up in front of your buildings to protest your government’s anti-democratic behavior!
What about protesting in front of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Ankara? Do our Saudi brothers not deserve democracy and free elections? Are we not going to “stand for our oppressed brothers”? Are we not going to “stand for resistance against dictatorships”?
The awakening Turkish soul is bad news for Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, too. Sooner or later, Islamist Turks should start protesting Mr. al-Bashir, wanted by an international court for genocide and crimes against humanity. Surely the Turks will stand for their Muslim Sudanese brothers mass-murdered by Mr. al-Bashir’s vigilantes.
In the meantime, the Democratic Turkish Resistance Solidarity Movement should turn its angry looks on the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans of the Middle East… only to help liberate their fellow Muslims from dictatorships of all possible tags. Bad news for the kings, emirs, sheiks and sultans…
I am not the one to teach the Islamists Islam. All the same, the Tunisia/Egypt protestors should better refresh their knowledge with one verse: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve, and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (Quran, 4:135).
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Iran and Egypt: Why did Mubarak Fall?
Despite conventional wisdom and realistic expectations, the Egyptian riots have nearly pushed Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian dictator, out of office.
How did a leaderless protest movement successfully challenge one of the longest serving and savviest leaders in the Middle East? Adding to the mystery, how did the support of America, Jordan, and the Gulf states, for Mubarak, become moot?
I am not the first to ask this question, and the explanations abound. One compelling account asserts that America was planning an overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, under Bush in 2008.
True or not, Obama has not shied away from vaguely, but unambiguously (as only an American politician can) supporting the Egyptian street. And for the first time since the abortive Oslo Accords, Americas “meddling” is being applauded (or at least not be condemned) by the average Arab and Muslim. This lack of anti-America hate may be due to the fact for the first time in recent years America is turning away from an autocratic (in this case 30 years of loyalty) leader in favor of the common Arab.
Obama, for his part, supports the Arab/Muslim street because of realpolitik. In other words throwing a long standing ally to the wind simply serves America’s best interest. The Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians, and every other ally of America should take this lesson to heart.
That said, why did Obama not come out in support of the Green revolution in Iran? Instead, according to some intelligence sites like debka.com, Obama sent a private letter of support to Iran’s “elected” leader Ahmadinejad. The question is compounded when you consider that Mubarak was a friend while the Mullahs of Iran were our sworn enemies.
One may respond that the Green movement did not reflect the majority of Iranians - just look at the mass pro-Ahmadinejad protests. A fair point, but one could counter that the only difference between the Mullah’s response to the Green movement and Mubarak’s response to the Egyptian protests was political fortitude and strategy.
Thus the Mullahs of Iran expected protests immediately after the disputed elections, and were ready to respond, they also had no qualms about resorting, almost, immediately to mass violence. The anti-Mubarak elements may have learned a lesson. They surprised Mubarak months after the disputed elections, and also reached out to the Egyptian army so as to prevent them from becoming a tool of repression. Another key difference, as pointed out by Debka.com, was that the Iranians regime had a target- the opposition leaders- whereas the Egyptian protesters were leaderless, at least superficially.
Perhaps the difference is simple. Obama only supports movements that he believes will actually succeed because "to support the projected victor is to gain the allegiance of the winner". Or it may be that Obama was a freshman president with little experience when the Green movement emerged, whereas now he is a seasoned politician.
Regardless of Obama's inconsistencies (or consistencies). The real question is will this movement coalesce into an effective Democratic movement that is friendly to America and peace, or whether the ominous silence of Iran heralds a Middle-East that sees a certain genre of Islam, not stability, as the primary objective. The answer to the above question will likely explain why the Egypt movement succeeded while the Green movement failed?
How did a leaderless protest movement successfully challenge one of the longest serving and savviest leaders in the Middle East? Adding to the mystery, how did the support of America, Jordan, and the Gulf states, for Mubarak, become moot?
I am not the first to ask this question, and the explanations abound. One compelling account asserts that America was planning an overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, under Bush in 2008.
True or not, Obama has not shied away from vaguely, but unambiguously (as only an American politician can) supporting the Egyptian street. And for the first time since the abortive Oslo Accords, Americas “meddling” is being applauded (or at least not be condemned) by the average Arab and Muslim. This lack of anti-America hate may be due to the fact for the first time in recent years America is turning away from an autocratic (in this case 30 years of loyalty) leader in favor of the common Arab.
Obama, for his part, supports the Arab/Muslim street because of realpolitik. In other words throwing a long standing ally to the wind simply serves America’s best interest. The Saudis, Israelis, Jordanians, and every other ally of America should take this lesson to heart.
That said, why did Obama not come out in support of the Green revolution in Iran? Instead, according to some intelligence sites like debka.com, Obama sent a private letter of support to Iran’s “elected” leader Ahmadinejad. The question is compounded when you consider that Mubarak was a friend while the Mullahs of Iran were our sworn enemies.
One may respond that the Green movement did not reflect the majority of Iranians - just look at the mass pro-Ahmadinejad protests. A fair point, but one could counter that the only difference between the Mullah’s response to the Green movement and Mubarak’s response to the Egyptian protests was political fortitude and strategy.
Thus the Mullahs of Iran expected protests immediately after the disputed elections, and were ready to respond, they also had no qualms about resorting, almost, immediately to mass violence. The anti-Mubarak elements may have learned a lesson. They surprised Mubarak months after the disputed elections, and also reached out to the Egyptian army so as to prevent them from becoming a tool of repression. Another key difference, as pointed out by Debka.com, was that the Iranians regime had a target- the opposition leaders- whereas the Egyptian protesters were leaderless, at least superficially.
Perhaps the difference is simple. Obama only supports movements that he believes will actually succeed because "to support the projected victor is to gain the allegiance of the winner". Or it may be that Obama was a freshman president with little experience when the Green movement emerged, whereas now he is a seasoned politician.
Regardless of Obama's inconsistencies (or consistencies). The real question is will this movement coalesce into an effective Democratic movement that is friendly to America and peace, or whether the ominous silence of Iran heralds a Middle-East that sees a certain genre of Islam, not stability, as the primary objective. The answer to the above question will likely explain why the Egypt movement succeeded while the Green movement failed?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?
Huffingtonpost.com just posted some extraordinary photos of protests in Egypt. The Egyptian protests follow two weeks in which the Arab street has exploded in anger against their respective governments. Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran, amongst others, are all experiencing political turmoil. Yes, we are used to seeing the Arab street explode over an array of minor issues –like the Muhammad cartoon saga. But this time is different, the street is not (yet, anyways) protesting the “meddling Americans” or the “Zionist occupiers”, this time they are directing their collective anger inwards -against their own governments. Moreover, this is the first time that so many Arab and Muslim nations have simultaneously experienced political unrest. There are no jobs, the government is unable, or unwilling, to end the economic woes, and there is a complete disconnect between the people and their governments and elites.
The narrative of the Arab protests is familiar. There is rampant unemployment, extremely low government approval ratings, and individuals willing to do more than sulk at home. In Greece and Ireland, two western states, the street exploded, and their respective governments have been hit hard. Who’s next?
From this perspective, the economic woes of the past two years have spawned a global wave of protests. Wikileaks exposure of routine two-faced political dealings by governments has added fuel to the fire of mistrust and dissatisfaction so prevalent in many societies. The real question is whether we can expect the same results in America?
It is true that Americans have historically weathered economic malfeasance and ineptitude –like during the great depression- with relative calm. But America has changed since the 1930’s, and nobody can say with certainty that a single digit approval rating of our government will not translate into burning tires and bodies on the streets of New York and Chicago. The Muslim Brotherhood and other such Islamic groups have not yet hijacked the protests. Just as the far left –or right- in America have not yet coalesced into an effective anti-government apparatus. But the possibility exists.
So I ask: Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?
The narrative of the Arab protests is familiar. There is rampant unemployment, extremely low government approval ratings, and individuals willing to do more than sulk at home. In Greece and Ireland, two western states, the street exploded, and their respective governments have been hit hard. Who’s next?
From this perspective, the economic woes of the past two years have spawned a global wave of protests. Wikileaks exposure of routine two-faced political dealings by governments has added fuel to the fire of mistrust and dissatisfaction so prevalent in many societies. The real question is whether we can expect the same results in America?
It is true that Americans have historically weathered economic malfeasance and ineptitude –like during the great depression- with relative calm. But America has changed since the 1930’s, and nobody can say with certainty that a single digit approval rating of our government will not translate into burning tires and bodies on the streets of New York and Chicago. The Muslim Brotherhood and other such Islamic groups have not yet hijacked the protests. Just as the far left –or right- in America have not yet coalesced into an effective anti-government apparatus. But the possibility exists.
So I ask: Will the Anger of the Arab Street Cross the Atlantic?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Copts, Muslims, and Democracy: America Needs to Start Making the Right Choices
I recently had the privilege of meeting an Egyptian doctor in a Starbucks in the city. He had overheard my conversation with a Muslim friend, and decided to join. Amongst the interesting perspectives he offered on Egypt and the region was the issue of Mubarak as a dictator vs. Mubarak as a pacifier. He argued that one of the reasons why Egypt is as stable as it has been since the Camp David accords was due to the secular stability that Mubarak implemented. What I found to be most interesting was that this doctor was a Christian-Copt.
For those that don’t know, the Copts are an ancient Christian denomination; the largest minority in Egypt; and a group that has experienced terrible discrimination at the hands of the Arab-Muslim majority. Yet despite the oppression of the Copts, this highly educated individual was supporting Mubarak. Why? Because, Mubarak has kept Islamist extremism in check, maintained Egypt’s leadership position in the region, and has offered a relative degree of economic well being –primarily through American funded subsidies- to its citizens. The alternative, he argued, was an Islamist government closer to Saudi Arabia in nature i.e. few churches, no political rights, and little freedom
My new friend's perspective raises a larger and relevant question:
Should we in America advocate for Democracy even in cases where that freedom will be hijacked by Islamic-extremist or other anti-Democratic elements? Should we support dictators in Tunisia, and Yemen, so long as they suppress terrorist entities from using their territory as training camps for attacks on the West?
America has always been involved in the spread of Democracy, but we have also, mostly, tempered our Democratic expansion with an unapologetic realism (this realism is what explains why we didn’t try “Iraq” before hand and why we are not going to try it again). Yet the populations in question –in this case the Arab street- are not blind to the obvious contradiction. On one hand we in America portray ourselves as the leader of the free world; with the other hand we pass millions of dollars to autocratic and oppressive governments who support our interests. Yes we may call that political realism, but in the Arab-world our opponents label it hypocrisy.
My Egyptian friend felt that a sudden Democracy movement in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak would be appropriated by non-Democratic elements -as it was in Iran, Gaza, and now Lebanon- who would then use it to keep themselves in indefinite power. But many participants and observers disagree; they see no ideological component to the Tunisian protests only a citizen population that is fed up with the economic ineptitude of their autocratic government.
Indeed there is no one formula: In some cases, like Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza etc. we see Islamic-extremists capitalizing on general dissatisfaction. However, that does not mean that every Muslim and Arab nation that goes through a popular upheaval will invariably end up like Iran or Gaza.
The problem for us in America is we don’t understand the Muslim world enough to know when to stand behind a dictator and when to stand behind Democratic movements. Why did Obama ignore the Green revolution in Iran? Why did we think we could make Iraq a functioning Democracy? Why did we remove our support from Musharraf in Pakistan? Why did we support elections in Gaza? Why did we look the other way when Hezbollah joined the Lebanese political process?
Some of you reading this may respond: “That’s the point, America should mind its own business”. I disagree; the world needs America, which means we should start making the right choices.
For those that don’t know, the Copts are an ancient Christian denomination; the largest minority in Egypt; and a group that has experienced terrible discrimination at the hands of the Arab-Muslim majority. Yet despite the oppression of the Copts, this highly educated individual was supporting Mubarak. Why? Because, Mubarak has kept Islamist extremism in check, maintained Egypt’s leadership position in the region, and has offered a relative degree of economic well being –primarily through American funded subsidies- to its citizens. The alternative, he argued, was an Islamist government closer to Saudi Arabia in nature i.e. few churches, no political rights, and little freedom
My new friend's perspective raises a larger and relevant question:
Should we in America advocate for Democracy even in cases where that freedom will be hijacked by Islamic-extremist or other anti-Democratic elements? Should we support dictators in Tunisia, and Yemen, so long as they suppress terrorist entities from using their territory as training camps for attacks on the West?
America has always been involved in the spread of Democracy, but we have also, mostly, tempered our Democratic expansion with an unapologetic realism (this realism is what explains why we didn’t try “Iraq” before hand and why we are not going to try it again). Yet the populations in question –in this case the Arab street- are not blind to the obvious contradiction. On one hand we in America portray ourselves as the leader of the free world; with the other hand we pass millions of dollars to autocratic and oppressive governments who support our interests. Yes we may call that political realism, but in the Arab-world our opponents label it hypocrisy.
My Egyptian friend felt that a sudden Democracy movement in Egypt that overthrew Mubarak would be appropriated by non-Democratic elements -as it was in Iran, Gaza, and now Lebanon- who would then use it to keep themselves in indefinite power. But many participants and observers disagree; they see no ideological component to the Tunisian protests only a citizen population that is fed up with the economic ineptitude of their autocratic government.
Indeed there is no one formula: In some cases, like Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza etc. we see Islamic-extremists capitalizing on general dissatisfaction. However, that does not mean that every Muslim and Arab nation that goes through a popular upheaval will invariably end up like Iran or Gaza.
The problem for us in America is we don’t understand the Muslim world enough to know when to stand behind a dictator and when to stand behind Democratic movements. Why did Obama ignore the Green revolution in Iran? Why did we think we could make Iraq a functioning Democracy? Why did we remove our support from Musharraf in Pakistan? Why did we support elections in Gaza? Why did we look the other way when Hezbollah joined the Lebanese political process?
Some of you reading this may respond: “That’s the point, America should mind its own business”. I disagree; the world needs America, which means we should start making the right choices.
Friday, January 21, 2011
A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part ll
The Israeli Perspective:
Israel’s use of settlements has a lot more nuance reflecting the diversity of Israel’s free political landscape.
The Left blames the settlements for all the woes of Israel “if only those settlers would disappear, Israel could finally achieve its potential”.
On a psychological level, the Left feels guilty (justly or otherwise) for supplanting so many Palestinians. However Israel is their home, and ensures Jewish survival, so they shift their guilt on to the settlements. On the rational (or irrational) level the Left protects its own homes, in Tel Aviv, by arguing that the only reason why there is violence against Israel-proper is because of the occupation, i.e. settlements. They conveniently ignore the stated beliefs –described above- of both religious and secular Muslims and Arabs. Ironically this is the real reason for the collapse of the Left in Israel; the illusion that there will be peace once occupation has ended has been completely dispelled by the Gaza fiasco. It seems obvious but it is a fact that has been conveniently ignored by the left-leaning media in Israel.
The secular right sees the settlements as a useful bargaining tool.
If the Arabs don’t fall in line and accept Israel’s right to exist, the right claims: "we (Israel) will maintain the settlements, and the anger that they engender in Arab countries!" The recent ascendancy of the Israel Beitanu party and its leader, Russian-born, Avigdor Lieberman is a reflection not only of a political coming-of-age of former Soviet Union immigrants but also a consequence of the left's now discredited belief that “settlements are the problem”. For the secular-right the settlements have always been a convenient bargaining tool. Think Menachem Begin (Yamit-Sinai) and Ariel Sharon (Gush Katif- Gaza).
For the religious-Right the settlements are the tangible manifestation of their core beliefs that Israel belongs to the Jews not because of the 1917 Balfour declaration, or the 1947 UN partition plan- but because it says so in the Bible. The settlements are the ideological breeding ground for the religious-Right. As the settlements grow and prosper, the religious-Right grows and prospers.
The settlement enterprise serves many interests. It is a convenient tool for the Arab, Muslim, and anti-Israel world to focus their “justified hate”, and it is a convenient football for Israeli politicians to kick around.
Meanwhile there are over 500,000 thousand “settlers” in the West-Bank and East-Jerusalem. To remove them from their homes would be no less traumatic and wrong then the expulsion and self-imposed exodus of the 600,000 Arabs from Israeli lands after the Arab world refused to recognize the 1947 partition plan.
Israel’s use of settlements has a lot more nuance reflecting the diversity of Israel’s free political landscape.
The Left blames the settlements for all the woes of Israel “if only those settlers would disappear, Israel could finally achieve its potential”.
On a psychological level, the Left feels guilty (justly or otherwise) for supplanting so many Palestinians. However Israel is their home, and ensures Jewish survival, so they shift their guilt on to the settlements. On the rational (or irrational) level the Left protects its own homes, in Tel Aviv, by arguing that the only reason why there is violence against Israel-proper is because of the occupation, i.e. settlements. They conveniently ignore the stated beliefs –described above- of both religious and secular Muslims and Arabs. Ironically this is the real reason for the collapse of the Left in Israel; the illusion that there will be peace once occupation has ended has been completely dispelled by the Gaza fiasco. It seems obvious but it is a fact that has been conveniently ignored by the left-leaning media in Israel.
The secular right sees the settlements as a useful bargaining tool.
If the Arabs don’t fall in line and accept Israel’s right to exist, the right claims: "we (Israel) will maintain the settlements, and the anger that they engender in Arab countries!" The recent ascendancy of the Israel Beitanu party and its leader, Russian-born, Avigdor Lieberman is a reflection not only of a political coming-of-age of former Soviet Union immigrants but also a consequence of the left's now discredited belief that “settlements are the problem”. For the secular-right the settlements have always been a convenient bargaining tool. Think Menachem Begin (Yamit-Sinai) and Ariel Sharon (Gush Katif- Gaza).
For the religious-Right the settlements are the tangible manifestation of their core beliefs that Israel belongs to the Jews not because of the 1917 Balfour declaration, or the 1947 UN partition plan- but because it says so in the Bible. The settlements are the ideological breeding ground for the religious-Right. As the settlements grow and prosper, the religious-Right grows and prospers.
The settlement enterprise serves many interests. It is a convenient tool for the Arab, Muslim, and anti-Israel world to focus their “justified hate”, and it is a convenient football for Israeli politicians to kick around.
Meanwhile there are over 500,000 thousand “settlers” in the West-Bank and East-Jerusalem. To remove them from their homes would be no less traumatic and wrong then the expulsion and self-imposed exodus of the 600,000 Arabs from Israeli lands after the Arab world refused to recognize the 1947 partition plan.
A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part l
The anti-Israel crowd is obsessed with illegal settlements in Israel. So I decided to share some relevant facts regarding the so-called settlements:
But first an update:
Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.
Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.
So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?
There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.
The Muslim and Arab Perspective:
The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.
On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.
So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.
Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.
In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.
But first an update:
Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.
Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.
So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?
There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.
The Muslim and Arab Perspective:
The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.
On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.
So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.
Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.
In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"The WikiLeaks-Iran connection" From Haaretz.com
For all the conspiracy theorist out there an interesting development from Haaretz.com
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/the-wikileaks-iran-connection-1.336790
"On November 4, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, arrived in Geneva. He held a press conference in which he hinted that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland. Assange spent two days there as the guest of an Iranian non-governmental organization, which also sponsored the press conference.
The NGO is called the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, but the impressive title conceals the Iranian government, which finances the organization. Assange's press conference took place in a building of one of the UN institutions in the city. Iranian diplomats were in the audience, and Iranian photo crews made sure to document who was there, until one of the UN security people told them to stop. It's unclear what Assange, the founder of a website that discloses secrets, and Iran, have to do with each other. WikiLeaks did not respond when asked to comment.
After WikiLeaks began disclosing the U.S. State Department's confidential cables, a rumor mill thrived on websites, mainly Arab ones, that Assange had met in Geneva with Mossad officials and reached an agreement not to disclose documents that could harm Israel. This conspiratorial theory was also based on the fact that some of the published documents embarrassed Arab leaders who were depicted as secret supporters of a military attack by the United States or Israel on Iran.
Assange denied the claim, and the Mossad in principle does not comment on reports about the organization. It seems the truth is very prosaic. The Mossad, as far as I know, was not really interested in Assange and his site. It has more important things to deal with. It's likely, however, that Iran is interested in Assange. His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy."
No, Iran was hurt by the last "dump" and wants to control who gets exposed next,but the point is well taken.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/the-wikileaks-iran-connection-1.336790
"On November 4, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, arrived in Geneva. He held a press conference in which he hinted that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland. Assange spent two days there as the guest of an Iranian non-governmental organization, which also sponsored the press conference.
The NGO is called the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, but the impressive title conceals the Iranian government, which finances the organization. Assange's press conference took place in a building of one of the UN institutions in the city. Iranian diplomats were in the audience, and Iranian photo crews made sure to document who was there, until one of the UN security people told them to stop. It's unclear what Assange, the founder of a website that discloses secrets, and Iran, have to do with each other. WikiLeaks did not respond when asked to comment.
After WikiLeaks began disclosing the U.S. State Department's confidential cables, a rumor mill thrived on websites, mainly Arab ones, that Assange had met in Geneva with Mossad officials and reached an agreement not to disclose documents that could harm Israel. This conspiratorial theory was also based on the fact that some of the published documents embarrassed Arab leaders who were depicted as secret supporters of a military attack by the United States or Israel on Iran.
Assange denied the claim, and the Mossad in principle does not comment on reports about the organization. It seems the truth is very prosaic. The Mossad, as far as I know, was not really interested in Assange and his site. It has more important things to deal with. It's likely, however, that Iran is interested in Assange. His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy."
No, Iran was hurt by the last "dump" and wants to control who gets exposed next,but the point is well taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
