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?
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
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.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Israel Must Support Mubarak
Egypt and Israel are in serious trouble!
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A New Paradigm for Linkage: The Iranian Threat is At the Root of Middle East Conflict
In an under-publicized July meeting between president Obama and 14 Jewish organizations, The ADL's Abe Foxman told the president.
"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."
"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."
Abe Foxman continued:
"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)
Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".
I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.
Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).
Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.
Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).
Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.
All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.
Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.
"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."
"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."
Abe Foxman continued:
"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)
Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".
I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.
Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).
Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.
Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).
Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.
All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.
Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge
ONE, The Sad Reality:
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
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.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel Failed in Executing its Response to the Turkish Flotilla
Israel’s number one navel Special Forces unit, Shayetet 13, succeeded in its mission to halt, commandeer, and divert the “aid” flotilla to Gaza. However if the underlying objective was anything more than stopping unauthorized aid, they failed miserably.
First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.
Four questions:
1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?
2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?
3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?
4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?
If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?
Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?
Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.
First the facts. Israel has made it clear for weeks that this flotilla, like the many that came before it, will not reach Gaza. Instead, like in the past, Israel would confiscate the materials vet them for use as weapons and then transfer them, along with the daily tons of materials that Israel and the international community provide, through the land entrances between Gaza and Israel. It is important to note that until Israel ended Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2008 ALL aid, including the materials for 1,000s of rockets was allowed in. No less important is that the sponsor of the flotilla is the IHH which has strong ties with Hamas and other anti-Israel organizations (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm). Finally, after Israeli commandoes boarded the ships they were mobbed by the most extreme elements of the anti-Israeli movement (as opposed to pro-Palestinian, I will explore this difference in the near future) from across the globe, who were wielding axes and knifes, and even stripped one of the soldiers of his pistol. After seeing that their paintball guns were not stopping the “peaceful” mob of activists from beating 6 of their comrades into a pulp, (SEE YOUTUBE VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded) the Israelis opened fire, killing over ten people and injuring over thirty more.
Four questions:
1. So why the casualties this time around?
Clearly Israel is used to the International community, and most Middle-eastern nation’s attempts at besmirching Israel. The most egregious examples are when terror organizations intentionally use civilians to attack Israelis. Why did Israel fall right into the anti-Israel movements hands?
2. Moreover one has to ask why Israel has been so outspoken over these past weeks about its intention of stopping the flotilla from reaching Gaza, using terms like “provocation”, to label the motivation behind the flotilla? Why give just another anti-Israel flotilla exactly what it wanted, publicity?
3. Another piece of the puzzle surrounds the question of why did Israel launch its operation 40-80 miles off the coast (very different reports coming out), way beyond its recognized territorial borders? Perhaps you answer that they were attempting to surprise the flotilla, maybe. However Israel made it clear that it planned on stopping the flotilla, with their usual system, which includes boarding. Why would Israel intentionally and with no obvious purpose violate international law, and board these ships in international waters?
4. Finally why in the lead up to the incident did Turkey claim that there would consequences if Israel stopped the flotilla, and now “Turkey appeared to be taking the lead in gathering international support against the Israeli attack, with the government already pressing international organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, the European Union and the Arab League to take action” (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turk-israeli-ties-beyond-the-point-of-no-return-2010-05-31). was the flotilla Turkish?
Alternatively, there is more here than meets the eye. Is it possible that there were elements on the lead Turkish ship the Mavi Marama, where this incident occurred, that were placed there specifically to trigger violence, to create a “provocation”. According to reports most of the casualties were Turkish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), which is significant considering that there is little chance that these commandoes were shooting indiscriminately, more probably they aimed at their attackers. It is no surprise that most of the people on board a Turkish ship were Turkish, but why was the lead ship flying under a Turkish flag?
If we conclude that this flotilla was sponsored in part by Turkey (Israeli sources have been clear that it is), than is it somehow tied to Turkeys domestic politics, which is beginning to see a CHP resurgence under its new mustached leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu? Could the 10,000s marching in Istanbul screaming anti-Israel slogans, spurred on by Erdogans usual rhetoric harnessing populist feelings by proclaiming Israel’s act "terrorist"?
Were the commandoes subjected to an organized attack planned well in advance to foment a provocation? Was Israel aware of this and declared unambiguously that this whole flotilla was an attempt to create a provocation? Was Israel sending a message to Erdogans and his major benefactor, Iran, that Israel will not hesitate to go into others terroritory and to halt a perceived attack?
Regardless of whether this was just another anti-Israel flotilla gone bad or whether this was a political move by one of the savviest politicians around. While this incident will neither bring peace closer, or end the blockade. Israel failed in executing there response to the Turkish flotilla.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Poetry with an explanation: "I don't see"
I wonder. I imagine. But I don’t see
Technology and the divine
Oil and the uninspired
Hate, love, commitment, and guns
Why does the obvious occur
How do you define obvious
The last of the undeveloped?
Surrounds the developed?
The body surrounds the soul?
No, we have ignored the obvious
We are blinded by the oil
By the mobile phone and cures for cancer
But did we not dig to discover oil,
Did we not innovate to discover technology?
Why can we not see the obvious,
We have done it before?
Are you looking for motivation?
LISTEN.
Iran is alienating everyone. For the first time in 60 years some Arabs and Jews see the common ground. But only after being exposed to an even greater tyranny. This is not a new. The Soviets and Europe found common ground only after being exposed to an even greater totalitarianism.
History repeats itself. We are exposed to two great tyrannies. A collapsing economy and nuclear Iran.
Instead of recognizing the obvious.
The Middles east is highly underdeveloped it is a perfect place to poor inflated capital -to invest. Here are untapped human resources and markets. You ask how we can help the undeveloped develop, I answer Israel. In 60 years they turned sand into a soon to be continental power. They have the know-how, the technology, the will, we recognize the motivation.
Imagine if Israel became the engine of growth in the Middle-East. An emerging Middle-East, could offer the ENTIRE WORLD, not just the Chinas and 3rd world not just the Europe’s and 1st worlds BOTH. Because BOTH are represented. The world needs a shot of economic success. The Middle needs a shot of vision.
Meanwhile a backwards Iran would have two choices submit to the will of the people, the united region, and world or experience the decay of recognized but unrealized potential.
For those that know that, don’t worry the pain becomes dull. Or perhaps you become dull.
I do not see because I am blind?
I do not see because they are blind!
But today the blind "see"
And the one that sees is called "blind".
Technology and the divine
Oil and the uninspired
Hate, love, commitment, and guns
Why does the obvious occur
How do you define obvious
The last of the undeveloped?
Surrounds the developed?
The body surrounds the soul?
No, we have ignored the obvious
We are blinded by the oil
By the mobile phone and cures for cancer
But did we not dig to discover oil,
Did we not innovate to discover technology?
Why can we not see the obvious,
We have done it before?
Are you looking for motivation?
LISTEN.
Iran is alienating everyone. For the first time in 60 years some Arabs and Jews see the common ground. But only after being exposed to an even greater tyranny. This is not a new. The Soviets and Europe found common ground only after being exposed to an even greater totalitarianism.
History repeats itself. We are exposed to two great tyrannies. A collapsing economy and nuclear Iran.
Instead of recognizing the obvious.
The Middles east is highly underdeveloped it is a perfect place to poor inflated capital -to invest. Here are untapped human resources and markets. You ask how we can help the undeveloped develop, I answer Israel. In 60 years they turned sand into a soon to be continental power. They have the know-how, the technology, the will, we recognize the motivation.
Imagine if Israel became the engine of growth in the Middle-East. An emerging Middle-East, could offer the ENTIRE WORLD, not just the Chinas and 3rd world not just the Europe’s and 1st worlds BOTH. Because BOTH are represented. The world needs a shot of economic success. The Middle needs a shot of vision.
Meanwhile a backwards Iran would have two choices submit to the will of the people, the united region, and world or experience the decay of recognized but unrealized potential.
For those that know that, don’t worry the pain becomes dull. Or perhaps you become dull.
I do not see because I am blind?
I do not see because they are blind!
But today the blind "see"
And the one that sees is called "blind".
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)
