by Shelby Steele November 14, 2011 at 5:00 am
Shelby Steele, Robert J and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute, member of the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.
The following is excerpted from a speech delivered September 22, 2011 in New York City at the conference "The Perils of Global Intolerance: The UN and Durban III," sponsored by the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and the Hudson Institute.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, is not really a conflict, it is a war – a war of the Arabs against the Jews. In many ways, this conflict has been a conflict between narratives. We who strongly support Israel have done a poor job in formulating a narrative which will combat the story spun by the other side. We can do better.
The Durban conferences, the request for UN recognition of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, and the general animus in the Middle East and elsewhere toward Israel and toward the Jews, what are they really about? Is the Durban conference and the claim that Israel is a racist nation really about reforming the people of Israel and curing them of their racism?
I think their real interest is to situate the Palestinian people within a narrative of victimization. This is their ulterior goal: to see themselves and to have others see them as victims of colonialism, as victims of white supremacy.
Listen to their language; it is the language of colonial oppression. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas claims that Palestinians have been occupied for 63 years. The word oppressed is constant, exploited. In this, there is a poetic truth; like poetic license, in a poetic truth a writer will bend the rules in order to be more effective.
I will give you one example of a poetic truth that comes from my group, black Americans. We make the following claims: America is a deeply, intractably racist society. It may not be as conspicuous today as it was before. Nevertheless, it is still there today structurally and systemically, and it still holds us back and keeps us from achieving the American dream.
To contradict this claim, one can come forward with evidence to suggest that racism in America today is about 25th on the list of problems facing black Americans. One can recount one of the great untold stories of America, namely, the moral growth and evolution away from that problem. This is not to say that racism is completely extinguished, but that it no longer prevents the forward progress of any black in the United States. There is no evidence to suggest that it does. Yet, this claim is still the centerpiece of black American identity – this idea that we are victimized by a fundamentally, incurably racist society.
Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does.
Why not? These narratives, these poetic truths, are the source of their power. Focusing on the case of the Palestinians, who would they be if they were not victims of white supremacy? They would just be poor people in the Middle East. They would be backwards. They would be behind Israel in every way. So this narrative is the source of their power. It is the source of their money. Money comes from around the world. It is the source of their self-esteem. Without it, would they be able to compete with Israeli society? They would have to confront in themselves a certain inferiority with regard to Israel – as most other Arab nations would have to confront an inferiority in themselves and be responsible for it.
The idea that the problem is Israel, that the problem is the Jews, protects Palestinians from having to confront that inferiority or do anything about it or overcome it. The idea among Palestinians that they are victims means more to them than anything else. It is everything. It is the centerpiece of their very identity and it is the way they define themselves as human beings in the world. It is not an idle thing. Our facts and our reason are not going to penetrate easily that definition or make any progress.
The question is, how do they get away with a poetic truth, based on such an obvious series of falsehoods? One reason why they get away with it in the Middle East is that the Western world lacks the moral authority to call them on it. The Western world has not said "your real problem is inferiority. Your real problem is underdevelopment." That has not been said, nor will ever be said – because the Western world was once colonial, was once racist, did practice white supremacy, and is so ashamed of itself and so vulnerable to those charges, that they are not going to say a word. They are not going to say what they really think and feel about what is so obvious about the circumstances among the Palestinians. So the poetic truth that Palestinians live by carries on.
International media also do not feel that they have the moral authority to report what they see. On the contrary, they feed this poetic truth and give it a kind of gravitas that it would never otherwise have.
Consequently, we need to develop a narrative that is not poetic, but literal and that is based on the truth. What would such a narrative look like?
It would begin with the presumption that the problem in the Middle East is not white supremacy but the end of white supremacy. After World War II, the empires began to contract, Britain went home, France went home, and the Arab world was left almost abandoned, and in a state of much greater freedom than they had ever known before.
Freedom is, however, a dicey thing to experience. When you come into freedom, you see yourself more accurately in the world. This is not unique to the Middle East. It was also the black American experience, when the Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964 and we came into much greater freedom. If you were a janitor in 1963 and you are still a janitor in 1965, you have all these freedoms and they are supported by the rule of law, then your actual experience of freedom is one of humiliation and one of shame. You see how far you have to go, how far behind you are, how little social capital you have with which to struggle forward. Even in freedom you see you are likely to be behind for a long time. In light of your inability to compete and your underdevelopment, freedom becomes something that you are very likely going to hate – because it carries this humiliation.
At that point formerly oppressed groups develop what I call bad faith. Bad faith is when you come into freedom, you are humiliated and you say, "Well you know the real truth is I am not free. Racism still exists. Zionism is my problem. The State of Israel is my problem. That is why I am so far behind and that is why I cannot get ahead."
You develop a culture grounded in bad faith where you insist that you are less free than you really are. Islamic extremism is the stunning example of this phenomenon. "I have to go on jihad because I am fighting for my freedom." Well you already have your freedom. You could stay home and study. You could do something constructive. But "No, I cannot do that because that makes me feel bad about myself." So I live in a world of extremism and dictators.
This is not unique to the Middle East. In black America we had exactly the same thing. After we got the civil rights bill and this greater degree of freedom, then all of a sudden we hear the words "black power." Then all of a sudden we have the Black Panthers. Then we have this militancy, this picking up of the gun because we feel bad about ourselves. We feel uncompetitive and this becomes our compensation. It is a common pattern among groups that felt abandoned when they became free.
This is the real story of the Palestinians and of the Middle East. They will never be reached by reason until they are somehow able to get beyond bad faith, to get beyond this sort of poetic truth that they are the perennial victims of an aggressive and racist Israeli nation.
Challenging their narrative with this explanation will enable us to be more effective. Until now, we have constantly used facts and reason and have not progressed.
Durban is a perfect example of bad faith because Durban is way of saying Israelis are racist and they are our problem. Durban really is a way of saying I am not free. I am still a victim. That is the real purpose of Durban. The Palestinian unilateral claim for recognition from the UN is also a perfect example of bad faith. If Palestinians proceed to the Security Council, they will very likely be turned down, and will respond by saying: "I told you we were victims. I told you the West is racist," and so on. It refuels the same sad identity.
The irony and the tragedy of all this is that it keeps these groups in a bubble where they never encounter or deal with the truth. This becomes a second oppression for all these groups. They have been oppressed once, now they are free and yet they create a poetic truth that then oppresses them all over again.
How are you going to have good faith if you are raised being told that the society in which you are trying to compete is against you, is racist? It is always the Palestinians who suffer, and will continue to suffer, because all of their energy is going into the avoidance of their situation rather than into being challenged by it and facing into it.
The strength of our argument is that it gives the Palestinians a way out. Development is the way out. The West can help you to compete. It may take a little while. But the alternative is a cycle of violence and hatred and poetic truths about constant victimhood.
The pattern of bad faith in certain places comes to embrace a kind of ethic of death. As Osama bin Laden claimed: in the West, you are all afraid of death, but we love death. Why would you love death? If you are not afraid of death then you are aggrandized; all of a sudden you are a big man. You are not a little, recently freed, inferior. Instead, you are somebody who manages, who conquers his world, who has power. For terrorism is power, the power of the gun. This poetic truth leads to a terrible, inconceivable fascination with death and violence and guns and bombs. It consumes a whole part of the world every single day – rather than the boring things that good faith requires, like going to school, raising your children, inventing software for instance, making money
This is the way the narrative must be retold.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Trashing of the Middle East
Posted by Lawrence W. White
There are few Middle East analysts as astute as Barry Rubin. Well informed, not prone to hyperbole, as events have played out he has become progressively more negative about President Obama’s performance on the Middle East stage. I have reprinted his latest essay below.
The Presidential election next year will be fought out largely on domestic issues, especially the prolonged recession, with high unemployment and underemployment. Yet just as we saw in the special Congressional election last week in Queens, foreign policy will loom large. Americans are tired of watching Barak Obama apologize for our nation, while he dangerously undermines our allies
Thus his failure to support our ally Israel, his failure to critique the Palestinians on their role in undermining negotiations, and his enabling of Israel’s old and new enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and now Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon, will be issues that the American people will judge harshly.
And it will not be limited to Jews and Evangelical Christians. The emergence of media and pundits who speak to broader segments of the public have found Obama deficient in his handling of the Middle East. Current Presidential candidates, speaking to audiences with few if any Jews, point to his betrayal of Israel as a major failing. It appears that a majority of the American people has grown disgusted with the way that Obama has thrown our ally Israel under the bus.
There are many other examples of Obamas ineptness in the arena of foreign policy. I will highlight only two here.
One clear example of failure is Turkey, the remnant of the old and powerful Ottoman Empire. Not long ago, Turkey was a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel. As pointed out by Jack Rosen , under Prime Minister Erdogan Turkey has turned away from the West, and is now looking to be a leader of the more radical Islamist states. Erdogan is now firmly against America. He has demonized Israel, promised to send flotillas to Gaza accompanied by the Turkish navy, tried to prevent Israel from drilling for oil and gas off its own coast, insisted that Israel allow arms to freely enter Gaza, and increased repression of his own people. And all the while, Obama demanded nothing from Turkey in exchange for American support.
A second example is Obama’s handling of nuclear proliferation by rogue states. As John Bolton has pointed out, “Since his inauguration, … Obama has insisted that the nuclear-proliferation threat represented by Iran and North Korea could be defused through negotiation. Although he has never articulated the slightest reason to believe that either rogue state would voluntarily eliminate its weapons program, he has extended his “open hand,” waiting for Tehran and Pyongyang to unclench their fists. In both cases, gullibility and the fascination with negotiation as a process, or perhaps just Obama’s narcissism, have given the proliferators the precious assets of time and the cover of legitimacy, both of which they have unfortunately used all too productively.”
There are many more examples, some outlined by Barry Rubin. To quote Rubin, on Middle East issues Obama has failed dangerously and badly. American national interests require that he be defeated in the next election.
I accuse President Barack Obama of Destroying Western Interests in the Middle East, Helping Destabilize the Region, and Putting Millions of Lives in Jeopardy
by Barry Rubin
http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/09/19/i-accuse-president-barack-obama-of-destroying-western-interests-in-the-middle-east-helping-destabilize-the-region-and-putting-millions-of-lives-in-jeopardy/
Think of how outrageous my headline is:
Destroying Western Interests in the Middle East, Helping Destabilize the Region, and Putting Millions of Lives in Jeopardy
Do you think that’s extremist, crazy, can’t be true because you’re not seeing that stuff in the New York Times? You must be a right-wing Republican, you say?
No, just a serious Middle East analyst.
The tenth anniversary of September 11, almost three years after Obama’s election, is a suitable time to confront this issue honestly and fully. So consider fairly and honestly the list of points below.
Egypt: Obama supported a revolution overthrowing a U.S. ally — rather than a smooth transition replacing the dictator and instituting some reform without dropping the entire regime — disregarding State Department advice and not even consulting with Jordan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia! He also unilaterally announced his readiness to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. His analysts denied that the Brotherhood is a radical, anti-American Islamist organization that supports terrorism. The resulting dangerous crisis, including Egypt becoming a new type of Iran, is now clear to all.
Israel-Palestinian Peace Process: By distancing himself from Israel, removing all pressure from the Palestinians, unilaterally proposing a freeze of Israeli construction on settlements, and repeatedly messing up the effort to restart negotiations, Obama made the peace process situation worse. His failure to handle properly the Palestinian UN unilateral independence bid has put U.S. policy in a terrible mess, with an American veto leading to large-scale anti-Americanism and probable violence both by Palestinians against Israel and by Muslims against the United States.
Israel: The damage the Obama Administration did to Israel was not in bilateral relations or even in the “peace process” but by its role in the deterioration of the regional situation to a dangerous extent. As a result, the two most powerful regional powers that had decent relations with Israel — Egypt and Turkey — turned around 180 degrees; Hamas rule was entrenched in the Gaza Strip; Hizballah’s rule in Lebanon. That’s four of Israel’s “neighbors” that became effectively hostile while the Obama Administration didn’t even notice. As the level of threat rose, U.S. political-diplomatic support for Israel declined.
Turkey: As Turkey continued to move toward being a repressive Islamist state allied with revolutionary Islamism, the U.S. government didn’t notice. Farcically, it promoted the ”Turkish model” and made Turkey its mediator over Syria’s future!
Lebanon: As Lebanon fell under Syria-Iran-Hizballah control, the Obama Administration did nothing. It failed to support the moderates and so they surrendered.
Syria: The Administration pursued the factually ridiculous effort to pull Syria away from Iran and engaged it even as Damascus escalated its support for terrorism, aggression toward Lebanon, killing Americans in Iraq, and then repressing its own people.
Gaza: The Administration gave Hamas indirect aid, made no serious effort to overthrow a radical, anti-American, genocidal-oriented regime, and pressed Israel to reduce sanctions to a minimum. This ensured the survival and strengthening of a pro-terrorist revolutionary Islamist state on the Mediterranean.
Saudi Arabia: Repeated slaps in the face and failure to confront advances by revolutionary Islamists — especially Iran and Syria, as well as abandonment of Mubarak — disgusted this ally. Seeing U.S. weakness, it concluded it has to take care of itself
Iran: After wasting a long time in engagement, the administration finally (at the slowest possible speed) did push sanctions. Yet it still has no strategy for opposing Iran’s non-nuclear methods of subverting neighbors and expanding its influence.
Danger: Obama failed to realize it or to define properly friends and enemies.
Leadership: Despite being begged by different allies, the Obama Administration failed to demonstrate leadership.
Empowering Islamism: In his Cairo speech and thereafter, Obama emphasized the Muslim identity of Middle Easterners thus undermining Arab identity and nationalism.
Endangering the lives of American soldiers and civilians: By refusing to allow a proper analysis of Islamism and terrorism. Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack in which Americans were killed because military officers feared to do their job lest it hurt their promotions.
Libya: Obama entered a war without any strategy for what would happen after Qadhafi fell or any knowledge of who he was helping to promote as the new leadership.
Rejection of basic diplomatic principles: Supporting friends and punishing enemies; credibility; deterrence; coherent strategy.
What’s important is the result, not whether you think this has been caused by incompetence; arrogance; a thirst for popularity over responsibility; ideology; a personal antipathy toward Israel (it shouldn’t be exaggerated but it’s there); lack of experience; choosing advisors badly; or ignorance among them. I don’t think it’s been deliberate but what’s shocking is to have a policy so bad that many do.
There is nothing inevitably Democratic or liberal about these failings. No previous president or administration — even that of Jimmy Carter — comes close to having so many dangerous failures. Nor is it inevitably a product of Washington, as the State and Defense departments gave him some good intelligence and advice which, if followed, would have greatly reduced the extent of the problems.
You can cheer Obama’s continued strategic cooperation with Israel, sanctions on Iran, and engagement in Libya. You can place blame on Obama’s predecessor or chant, “Obama killed Osama” and not tireless American intelligence operatives or courageous Navy SEALs. But after all the rationalizations won’t you admit that the situation is still truly shocking?
The American people, Middle East allies, US. interests, and the world generally cannot afford another four years of misjudgment and reckless endangerment. Can Obama be trusted to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran; a radical Egypt supporting Hamas; a Turkish regime screaming about fighting Israel, a Palestinian movement that has thrown away any diplomatic alternative?
I leave jobs and the economy, medical care, and such to others. On Middle East issues, however, Obama has failed dangerously and badly. He has ignored chances to learn from experience. American national interests require that he be defeated in the next election.
There are few Middle East analysts as astute as Barry Rubin. Well informed, not prone to hyperbole, as events have played out he has become progressively more negative about President Obama’s performance on the Middle East stage. I have reprinted his latest essay below.
The Presidential election next year will be fought out largely on domestic issues, especially the prolonged recession, with high unemployment and underemployment. Yet just as we saw in the special Congressional election last week in Queens, foreign policy will loom large. Americans are tired of watching Barak Obama apologize for our nation, while he dangerously undermines our allies
Thus his failure to support our ally Israel, his failure to critique the Palestinians on their role in undermining negotiations, and his enabling of Israel’s old and new enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and now Egypt, Turkey, and Lebanon, will be issues that the American people will judge harshly.
And it will not be limited to Jews and Evangelical Christians. The emergence of media and pundits who speak to broader segments of the public have found Obama deficient in his handling of the Middle East. Current Presidential candidates, speaking to audiences with few if any Jews, point to his betrayal of Israel as a major failing. It appears that a majority of the American people has grown disgusted with the way that Obama has thrown our ally Israel under the bus.
There are many other examples of Obamas ineptness in the arena of foreign policy. I will highlight only two here.
One clear example of failure is Turkey, the remnant of the old and powerful Ottoman Empire. Not long ago, Turkey was a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel. As pointed out by Jack Rosen , under Prime Minister Erdogan Turkey has turned away from the West, and is now looking to be a leader of the more radical Islamist states. Erdogan is now firmly against America. He has demonized Israel, promised to send flotillas to Gaza accompanied by the Turkish navy, tried to prevent Israel from drilling for oil and gas off its own coast, insisted that Israel allow arms to freely enter Gaza, and increased repression of his own people. And all the while, Obama demanded nothing from Turkey in exchange for American support.
A second example is Obama’s handling of nuclear proliferation by rogue states. As John Bolton has pointed out, “Since his inauguration, … Obama has insisted that the nuclear-proliferation threat represented by Iran and North Korea could be defused through negotiation. Although he has never articulated the slightest reason to believe that either rogue state would voluntarily eliminate its weapons program, he has extended his “open hand,” waiting for Tehran and Pyongyang to unclench their fists. In both cases, gullibility and the fascination with negotiation as a process, or perhaps just Obama’s narcissism, have given the proliferators the precious assets of time and the cover of legitimacy, both of which they have unfortunately used all too productively.”
There are many more examples, some outlined by Barry Rubin. To quote Rubin, on Middle East issues Obama has failed dangerously and badly. American national interests require that he be defeated in the next election.
I accuse President Barack Obama of Destroying Western Interests in the Middle East, Helping Destabilize the Region, and Putting Millions of Lives in Jeopardy
by Barry Rubin
http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/09/19/i-accuse-president-barack-obama-of-destroying-western-interests-in-the-middle-east-helping-destabilize-the-region-and-putting-millions-of-lives-in-jeopardy/
Think of how outrageous my headline is:
Destroying Western Interests in the Middle East, Helping Destabilize the Region, and Putting Millions of Lives in Jeopardy
Do you think that’s extremist, crazy, can’t be true because you’re not seeing that stuff in the New York Times? You must be a right-wing Republican, you say?
No, just a serious Middle East analyst.
The tenth anniversary of September 11, almost three years after Obama’s election, is a suitable time to confront this issue honestly and fully. So consider fairly and honestly the list of points below.
Egypt: Obama supported a revolution overthrowing a U.S. ally — rather than a smooth transition replacing the dictator and instituting some reform without dropping the entire regime — disregarding State Department advice and not even consulting with Jordan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia! He also unilaterally announced his readiness to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. His analysts denied that the Brotherhood is a radical, anti-American Islamist organization that supports terrorism. The resulting dangerous crisis, including Egypt becoming a new type of Iran, is now clear to all.
Israel-Palestinian Peace Process: By distancing himself from Israel, removing all pressure from the Palestinians, unilaterally proposing a freeze of Israeli construction on settlements, and repeatedly messing up the effort to restart negotiations, Obama made the peace process situation worse. His failure to handle properly the Palestinian UN unilateral independence bid has put U.S. policy in a terrible mess, with an American veto leading to large-scale anti-Americanism and probable violence both by Palestinians against Israel and by Muslims against the United States.
Israel: The damage the Obama Administration did to Israel was not in bilateral relations or even in the “peace process” but by its role in the deterioration of the regional situation to a dangerous extent. As a result, the two most powerful regional powers that had decent relations with Israel — Egypt and Turkey — turned around 180 degrees; Hamas rule was entrenched in the Gaza Strip; Hizballah’s rule in Lebanon. That’s four of Israel’s “neighbors” that became effectively hostile while the Obama Administration didn’t even notice. As the level of threat rose, U.S. political-diplomatic support for Israel declined.
Turkey: As Turkey continued to move toward being a repressive Islamist state allied with revolutionary Islamism, the U.S. government didn’t notice. Farcically, it promoted the ”Turkish model” and made Turkey its mediator over Syria’s future!
Lebanon: As Lebanon fell under Syria-Iran-Hizballah control, the Obama Administration did nothing. It failed to support the moderates and so they surrendered.
Syria: The Administration pursued the factually ridiculous effort to pull Syria away from Iran and engaged it even as Damascus escalated its support for terrorism, aggression toward Lebanon, killing Americans in Iraq, and then repressing its own people.
Gaza: The Administration gave Hamas indirect aid, made no serious effort to overthrow a radical, anti-American, genocidal-oriented regime, and pressed Israel to reduce sanctions to a minimum. This ensured the survival and strengthening of a pro-terrorist revolutionary Islamist state on the Mediterranean.
Saudi Arabia: Repeated slaps in the face and failure to confront advances by revolutionary Islamists — especially Iran and Syria, as well as abandonment of Mubarak — disgusted this ally. Seeing U.S. weakness, it concluded it has to take care of itself
Iran: After wasting a long time in engagement, the administration finally (at the slowest possible speed) did push sanctions. Yet it still has no strategy for opposing Iran’s non-nuclear methods of subverting neighbors and expanding its influence.
Danger: Obama failed to realize it or to define properly friends and enemies.
Leadership: Despite being begged by different allies, the Obama Administration failed to demonstrate leadership.
Empowering Islamism: In his Cairo speech and thereafter, Obama emphasized the Muslim identity of Middle Easterners thus undermining Arab identity and nationalism.
Endangering the lives of American soldiers and civilians: By refusing to allow a proper analysis of Islamism and terrorism. Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack in which Americans were killed because military officers feared to do their job lest it hurt their promotions.
Libya: Obama entered a war without any strategy for what would happen after Qadhafi fell or any knowledge of who he was helping to promote as the new leadership.
Rejection of basic diplomatic principles: Supporting friends and punishing enemies; credibility; deterrence; coherent strategy.
What’s important is the result, not whether you think this has been caused by incompetence; arrogance; a thirst for popularity over responsibility; ideology; a personal antipathy toward Israel (it shouldn’t be exaggerated but it’s there); lack of experience; choosing advisors badly; or ignorance among them. I don’t think it’s been deliberate but what’s shocking is to have a policy so bad that many do.
There is nothing inevitably Democratic or liberal about these failings. No previous president or administration — even that of Jimmy Carter — comes close to having so many dangerous failures. Nor is it inevitably a product of Washington, as the State and Defense departments gave him some good intelligence and advice which, if followed, would have greatly reduced the extent of the problems.
You can cheer Obama’s continued strategic cooperation with Israel, sanctions on Iran, and engagement in Libya. You can place blame on Obama’s predecessor or chant, “Obama killed Osama” and not tireless American intelligence operatives or courageous Navy SEALs. But after all the rationalizations won’t you admit that the situation is still truly shocking?
The American people, Middle East allies, US. interests, and the world generally cannot afford another four years of misjudgment and reckless endangerment. Can Obama be trusted to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran; a radical Egypt supporting Hamas; a Turkish regime screaming about fighting Israel, a Palestinian movement that has thrown away any diplomatic alternative?
I leave jobs and the economy, medical care, and such to others. On Middle East issues, however, Obama has failed dangerously and badly. He has ignored chances to learn from experience. American national interests require that he be defeated in the next election.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Case Against Rick Perry: Part One; the Execution of an Innocent Man
Current Rasmussen polls show Texas Governor Rick Perry leading the Republican field with 29 % of the GOP vote, with second place Mitt Romney at 18%. As a newcomer who was vigorously courted prior to entering the race, Perry is likely at the peak of his popularity. I predict that as he becomes better known, and especially as some of his negatives become apparent, his support will fall off.
There are three major reasons not to hand the GOP nomination to Governor Perry. The first of these, the fact that he presided over a serious abuse of the justice system which resulted in the execution of a man who was almost certainly innocent, is discussed below.
On December 23, 1991, a fire at the Corsicana, Texas home of .Cameron Todd Willingham resulted in the deaths of his three daughters. Willingham himself escaped the home with only minor burns. Willingham's wife was not home at the time of the fire. Prosecutors charged that Willingham set the fire and killed the children in an attempt to cover up abuse of the girls. However, there was never any history or evidence of child abuse and Willingham's wife had told prosecutors that he had never abused the children. Willingham was convicted of murder, and after 12 years on death row, he was executed. for the murder of his three young children by arson.
In 2009, David Grann published an exhaustive essay in the New Yorker that documented the story of this crime in detail. The essay did not have the flavor of a propaganda piece, but presented the opinions and statements of all the participants .
The primary evidence leading to Willingham's arrest and conviction resulted from police inspections after the fire, based on forensic evidence that supposedly proved the fire was intentionally started using some form of liquid accelerant, thereby proving arson. However, as Grann shows, the evidence was, in fact, completely invalid.
Fire investigator Gerald L Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire.” “The whole case was based on the purest form of junk science," Hurst later said. It became clear that the charge of arson was based on erroneous and invalid concepts, and this was shown to be the case prior to Willingham's execution.
In addition to the arson evidence, a jailhouse informant named Johnny Webb claimed that Willingham confessed to him that he set the fire to hide an injury or death of one of the girls, caused by his wife, although none of the girls at the time of death were found to have physical injuries still distinguishable after the effects of the fire. Webb later told a reporter for The New Yorker, "it's very possible I misunderstood what he said. Being locked up in that little cell makes you kind of crazy. My memory is in bits and pieces. I was on a lot of medication at the time. Everyone knew that.". At Willingham's trial, Webb offered an explanation for the individual, distinguishable burns that were found on the forehead and arm of one of the children, stating that Willingham confessed to burning her twice with a piece of "wadded up" paper in an effort to make it appear as though the children were "playing with fire" Webb was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Even the prosecutor described Webb as "an unreliable kind of guy", yet after Webb's testimony the prosecutor successfully got him released from prison early.
In addition to the invalid arson evidence, and the unreliable statements from the jailhouse informant, evidence was also presented that Willingham was an unsavory character with a large skull head tattoo, and a background that may or may not have included spousal abuse.
One of the prosecutors admitted that an "undeniably flawed forensic report" was used to convict Willingham, but claimed that other reasons established guilt.
After years on death row, Cameron Todd Willingham’s final recourse was to appeal to Rick Perry, the governor of Texas. In his final hours, Willingham and his attorneys tried frantically to show the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, a new scientific report proving his innocence. Governor Perry chose to ignore this evidence and refused to grant a stay of execution, saying through a spokesperson that "The Governor made his decision based on the facts of the case." Governor Perry said that the "supposed experts" were wrong, and setting up a straw man, claimed that the supposed contrary evidence was anti-death penalty "propaganda".
Willingham was executed on February 17, 2004. After reading Grann's report in the New Yorker, it seems clear that that none of the evidence used to convict Willingham was valid, and that an innocent man was executed.
Five years after Willingham was executed, the State of Texas ordered an unprecedented re-examination of the case. In August 2009, eighteen years after the fire and five years after Willingham's execution, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, said that investigators ignored the scientific method for analyzing fires described in NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations and relied on "folklore" and "myths". The report found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained", and that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics”.
As the commission prepared to hear testimony from Beyler, Governor Perry quickly fired and replaced three of the nine commission members in an apparent attempt to change the commission's findings. Perry denies these allegations. Rick Perry aide Mary Anne Wiley said the commission's $30,000 hiring of fire scientist Craig Beyler was a waste of taxpayer money.
The final report confirmed what five other leading arson experts had found -- what passed for arson analysis had no scientific basis. The report concluded that the original arson investigators relied on now-outdated science in concluding that the fire was intentionally set. This was a fire; it was not arson. In response to charges that he allowed the execution of an innocent man, Perry was quoted as stating "he was a wife beater."
There was one more piece of activity that smacks of a cover-up. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott ruled that the state's Forensic Science Commission (FSC) does not have authority to review evidence regarding the possible innocence of Willingham, because evidence that was tested or offered into evidence prior to September 1, 2005 is beyond the scope of the FSC's legal jurisdiction.
The execution of an innocent person has long been regarded as a nightmare by most persons including supporters of the death penalty.
John Stuart Mill was an eloquent defender of capital punishment, arguing that executing a murderer was proof of the value of life. However, for Mill, there was one clear exception, “that if by an error of justice an innocent person is put to death, the mistake can never be corrected.”
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said that the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event.”
The process by which a governor may grant clemency is considered the last gatekeeper to the executioner, and has been called by the U.S. Supreme Court “the ‘fail safe’ in our criminal justice system.” This is a serious duty. With his cavalier attitude toward critical new evidence, his unwillingness to take his profound responsibility seriously, Rick Perry failed a critical test.
This can be contrasted with Illinois Governor George Ryan, an advocate of capital punishment who suspended the death penalty in 2000, after thirteen people on death row in Illinois were exonerated, declaring that he could no longer support a system that has “come so close to the ultimate nightmare—the state’s taking of innocent life.”
Choosing who shall live and who shall die is a serious matter, requiring an obligation to use restraint when there is doubt. We want leaders whom we can trust to exercise power responsibly. The Willingham case clearly shows that Rick Perry lacks the virtues of both charity and justice. His ethical shortcomings result in him not being the sort of man we want to select for President of the United States.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Michael Lerner Solves our Debt Ceiling Crisis
Michael Lerner, a faux rabbi who never graduated from a theological rabbinic school, has done it again. In his latest emailing he has his own unique solution to the debt ceiling crisis.
Here is what he says;
“Instead of being such a wimp, Obama could even now simply announce the following plan for what will happen if the debt limit isn't reached: he will pay the social security, medicare and other benefits to those Congressional districts whose representatives voted to raise the debt limit and not to those which did not.”
Let me understand this. If a particular Congressman did not vote to raise the debt limit, Lerner would have all the seniors of his district thrown off the Medicare rolls, no matter how sick or in need of health care they were, and these people would also be denied their Social Security checks, meaning destitution for many. Talk about collective punishment!
Let me be clear. According to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, Lerner is entitled to say whatever he believes. But this sort of “solution” is what Lerner has been warning us would happen if the “right wing” is allowed to take over our nation. (Lerner always uses the term “right wing” pejoratively; in his demonization of the American voting public, it applies to all Americans who support Israel)
The hypocrisy and sanctimony should not be surprising. This is a man who ostentatiously trumpets his spirituality, and who claims to deplore the political game which he has played for his entire adult life. And yet he suggests playing hardball in a way that not even Chris Matthews would suggest.
There is a pattern here. A few years ago. Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece for the Jerusalem Post in which he pointed out that Michael Lerner had concurred in a call for his (Dershowitz’s) assassination.
Dershowitz recounted that Norman Finkelstein, a strong supporter of Hezbollah and an opponent of justice for Holocaust survivors, had published an article entitled "Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?" In his article, Finkelstein justified Lerner’s assassination as a war criminal, based on his support for Israel.
Finkelstein's piece was accompanied by a cartoon showing Dershowitz masturbating while viewing images of dead Lebanese civilians with a Jewish Star of David prominently featured.
Michael Lerner then approvingly circulated the Finkelstein article from his Tikkun e-mail account and under the Tikkun letterhead. This is the rabbi who promotes himself as head of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, who claims to be devoted "to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion." This is a man who purports to observe the Jewish values against evil words (lashon hara) and bearing false witness. This is a man who ardently opposes Israel's targeted assassination of Hamas terrorists, but supports the assassination of a pro-Israel academic.
Here are some of Dershowitz's comments in response:
“Why would a rabbi circulate an article by an anti-Semite suggesting that the assassination of a pro-Israel professor might be justified? Because the "rabbi" is himself an Israel-basher who has gotten into bed with Hezbollah supporters, advocates of divestment from Israel and other Jew-haters.
I'm describing, of course, Rabbi Michael Lerner, whose magazine Tikkun is quickly becoming the most virulently anti-Israel screed ever published under Jewish auspices.”
Lerner has never graduated from a theological rabbinic seminary, and many do not consider him a rabbi. After dropping out of the Jewish Theological Seminary, he prevailed on three buddies to “ordain” him, a so-called private ordination. Mainstream rabbinical leaders of the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements have expressed concern that private ordinations, not granted by seminaries, can produce insufficiently educated or fraudulent rabbis.
Lerner’s response to this is boilerplate Lerner. He attacks seminaries for being "more interested in producing organizational men for Jewish life than spiritual leaders connected to the deepest spiritual and social-justice minds".(presumably and immodestly meaning himself)
In response to this, Rabbi Alan Lew, a genuine spiritual being, stated, "That is arrogant nonsense. I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah”.
Whether or not Lerner is a rabbi, whether or not he is devoted "to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion.", whether or not he advocates assassinating a political rival, his latest screed makes one thing crystal clear. Lerner supports severe collective punishment for those who live in districts in which their representative takes positions different from those of Lerner. This has all the hallmarks of a tyrannical approach to policy making.
Whether liberal, conservative or centrist, this is not the way we solve problems in America. These are not the words of a spiritual, compassionate, above-the-political-fray person. Nor is this the language of a believer in democracy.
Here is what he says;
“Instead of being such a wimp, Obama could even now simply announce the following plan for what will happen if the debt limit isn't reached: he will pay the social security, medicare and other benefits to those Congressional districts whose representatives voted to raise the debt limit and not to those which did not.”
Let me understand this. If a particular Congressman did not vote to raise the debt limit, Lerner would have all the seniors of his district thrown off the Medicare rolls, no matter how sick or in need of health care they were, and these people would also be denied their Social Security checks, meaning destitution for many. Talk about collective punishment!
Let me be clear. According to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, Lerner is entitled to say whatever he believes. But this sort of “solution” is what Lerner has been warning us would happen if the “right wing” is allowed to take over our nation. (Lerner always uses the term “right wing” pejoratively; in his demonization of the American voting public, it applies to all Americans who support Israel)
The hypocrisy and sanctimony should not be surprising. This is a man who ostentatiously trumpets his spirituality, and who claims to deplore the political game which he has played for his entire adult life. And yet he suggests playing hardball in a way that not even Chris Matthews would suggest.
There is a pattern here. A few years ago. Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece for the Jerusalem Post in which he pointed out that Michael Lerner had concurred in a call for his (Dershowitz’s) assassination.
Dershowitz recounted that Norman Finkelstein, a strong supporter of Hezbollah and an opponent of justice for Holocaust survivors, had published an article entitled "Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?" In his article, Finkelstein justified Lerner’s assassination as a war criminal, based on his support for Israel.
Finkelstein's piece was accompanied by a cartoon showing Dershowitz masturbating while viewing images of dead Lebanese civilians with a Jewish Star of David prominently featured.
Michael Lerner then approvingly circulated the Finkelstein article from his Tikkun e-mail account and under the Tikkun letterhead. This is the rabbi who promotes himself as head of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, who claims to be devoted "to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion." This is a man who purports to observe the Jewish values against evil words (lashon hara) and bearing false witness. This is a man who ardently opposes Israel's targeted assassination of Hamas terrorists, but supports the assassination of a pro-Israel academic.
Here are some of Dershowitz's comments in response:
“Why would a rabbi circulate an article by an anti-Semite suggesting that the assassination of a pro-Israel professor might be justified? Because the "rabbi" is himself an Israel-basher who has gotten into bed with Hezbollah supporters, advocates of divestment from Israel and other Jew-haters.
I'm describing, of course, Rabbi Michael Lerner, whose magazine Tikkun is quickly becoming the most virulently anti-Israel screed ever published under Jewish auspices.”
Lerner has never graduated from a theological rabbinic seminary, and many do not consider him a rabbi. After dropping out of the Jewish Theological Seminary, he prevailed on three buddies to “ordain” him, a so-called private ordination. Mainstream rabbinical leaders of the Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements have expressed concern that private ordinations, not granted by seminaries, can produce insufficiently educated or fraudulent rabbis.
Lerner’s response to this is boilerplate Lerner. He attacks seminaries for being "more interested in producing organizational men for Jewish life than spiritual leaders connected to the deepest spiritual and social-justice minds".(presumably and immodestly meaning himself)
In response to this, Rabbi Alan Lew, a genuine spiritual being, stated, "That is arrogant nonsense. I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah”.
Whether or not Lerner is a rabbi, whether or not he is devoted "to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion.", whether or not he advocates assassinating a political rival, his latest screed makes one thing crystal clear. Lerner supports severe collective punishment for those who live in districts in which their representative takes positions different from those of Lerner. This has all the hallmarks of a tyrannical approach to policy making.
Whether liberal, conservative or centrist, this is not the way we solve problems in America. These are not the words of a spiritual, compassionate, above-the-political-fray person. Nor is this the language of a believer in democracy.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Israel and Palestine; The Two State Solution
What is preventing a two state solution?
What does a two state solution mean?
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean － neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." Lewis Carroll.
Here are two key questions;
A. ”Two states for two peoples” is the position of the majority of Jews, both in Israel and in America. Why isn’t it happening?
B. Why does the government of Israel insist that the Arabs recognize the existence of a Jewish state? Many persons, both Arab and Jew, believe that this is simply nit picking, possibly a deliberate stratagem designed to serve as a barrier to proceeding with negotiations.
The expression “two states for two peoples” has different meaning for the two parties to the conflict, meanings that are mutually exclusive. Here is a primer, with seven parts and a conclusion.
1. For the Israeli Jews, the two states will be a Palestinian Arab state, (to which any Palestinian may “return”, but no Jews will be allowed to live there, no matter how long they and their families have been there), and a Jewish state, in which the rights of all minorities will be safeguarded
2. For the Palestinian Arabs, there will also be two states. They agree with the Jews on one of those. There will be an Arab state, free of Jews. . However, the other state is to be a binational, not a Jewish state, and Palestinians Arabs may invoke the “right of return”, entering this state in large numbers.. Demographics are such that the binational state will eventually be a majority Arab state, and if democracy prevails will be controlled by Arabs. Palestinian Arabs will live in both states, Jews will only be permitted in the binational state, where they will eventually be a minority,.
3. For the Arabs, there can never be a Jewish state in the Middle East. This is fundamental, and is why there have been multiple wars. This principle has been reiterated by President Abbas (“we refuse to recognize a Jewish state”) and by all the key figures in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. This intransigence by the Arabs makes peace most unlikely at the present time.
In 2000, in talks brokered by President Clinton, a two state plan was offered to the Palestinians by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. President Arafat said no, offered no alternate proposal, walked away, and started a deadly intifada. Similarly in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a deal that would have given the Palestinians the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank. This too was refused.
Why did the Palestinian Arabs shun these opportunities? Because for them preventing a Jewish state is more important than having their own state. If this were not so, a Palestinian state would have been established many years ago.
4. For the Jews, there must be a State of Israel , and it must be a Jewish state, meaning the end of subjugation as a people. This is the essence of the Zionist enterprise, a movement of national liberation for the Jewish people, who have survived 2000 years of persecution, pogroms, and mass murder.
In his recent speech to the US Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated “Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state”
No agreement is possible when one side is committed to the other's destruction. Israeli Jews are not willing to watch their state be eliminated. This means a standoff with the Arabs..
5. J Street also claims to exist to promote a two state solution. However, their version of a two state solution is one that would exist after President Obama put pressure on Israel to give in to Arab demands, thereby facilitating the scenario desired by the Arabs described above. For J Street to claim they are pro-Israel is simply untrue. Unfortunately, many American Jews accept this simplistic and completely wrong argument. Similar groups, like Jewish Voice for Peace and Tikkun, encourage criticism of Israel, and utter meaningless and false slogans, statements that have no basis in history, logic, and current realities.
Many American Jews have been seduced by the easy promises of these groups (don’t we all want peace? Why won’t Israel get with the program?) They believe that J Street is simply presenting a way to achieve progress, and is doing the work that Israel should be doing. In other words, sitting in the safety of the US, and funded by the anti-Zionist George Soros, J Street claims to know what is needed for a permanent solution, and they claim that they know better than the government of Israel, elected by the people who are facing rocket attacks and suicide bombers,
Unfortunately the presence of this attitude by some American Jews has encouraged President Obama to put pressure on only one side in the conflict, pressure to do things that will promote the achievement of the Arab goals, while endangering the Jewish state Paradoxically, all this “peace making” by President Obama, by the Quartet, by the European Union, and by the United Nations, has resulted in making a real solution more remote.
6. For the Obama administration, desperate for a foreign policy “success”, pressure on Israel makes perfect sense. The words “two states” means exactly what they want them to mean. To achieve a deal that will make the Arabs happy has greater importance than to actually have a Jewish and Arab state living in peace side by side.
Most of Obama’s advisors recommend leaning on Israel. They believe that prior and current financial and diplomatic support for Israel by the US, will now provide the needed leverage to force Israel to bow to the demands of the US. (In the condescending attitude of Tom Friedman and the New York Times, how can Netanyahu dare to say “no” to the President of the US?).
The reality is that such pressure, perceived as suicidal, has no effect on Israel, and only makes the Arabs more recalcitrant, expecting that the US and the various international bodies will do their negotiation for them and force Israel to give in to the Arab version of the two state solution.
7. There was one more historical “Two State Solution”, that occurred in 1922. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1, the British were given a mandate over the Ottoman province known as Palestine. In 1917, The British Foreign Secretary, James Arthur Balfour, indicated by letter that Palestine was to be the homeland of the Jewish people. This was later incorporated into the “Mandate for Palestine”, in which the Allied Powers agreed that the Mandate would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made in 1917, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
In 1922, Britain divided the Palestinian Mandate into two parts (two states). One part, consisting of the 74% of the Mandate, the area East of the Jordan, was made into an Arab state known as Transjordan (later Jordan), the remaining 26% was kept by the British and was intended to be the future Jewish state. This was the first two state solution, 90 years ago, designed to create an Arab state and a Jewish state.
Conclusion
Until the Arabs are willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state, there will be no solution to the conflict. The proposal of two states for two people, one Arab, one Jewish, is eminently fair. It has a long historical pedigree, including the recommendation of partition (into two states) by the UN in 1947, and achieves appropriate goals for both sides. The US Congress and the American people understand this; our Administration does not.
What does a two state solution mean?
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean － neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." Lewis Carroll.
Here are two key questions;
A. ”Two states for two peoples” is the position of the majority of Jews, both in Israel and in America. Why isn’t it happening?
B. Why does the government of Israel insist that the Arabs recognize the existence of a Jewish state? Many persons, both Arab and Jew, believe that this is simply nit picking, possibly a deliberate stratagem designed to serve as a barrier to proceeding with negotiations.
The expression “two states for two peoples” has different meaning for the two parties to the conflict, meanings that are mutually exclusive. Here is a primer, with seven parts and a conclusion.
1. For the Israeli Jews, the two states will be a Palestinian Arab state, (to which any Palestinian may “return”, but no Jews will be allowed to live there, no matter how long they and their families have been there), and a Jewish state, in which the rights of all minorities will be safeguarded
2. For the Palestinian Arabs, there will also be two states. They agree with the Jews on one of those. There will be an Arab state, free of Jews. . However, the other state is to be a binational, not a Jewish state, and Palestinians Arabs may invoke the “right of return”, entering this state in large numbers.. Demographics are such that the binational state will eventually be a majority Arab state, and if democracy prevails will be controlled by Arabs. Palestinian Arabs will live in both states, Jews will only be permitted in the binational state, where they will eventually be a minority,.
3. For the Arabs, there can never be a Jewish state in the Middle East. This is fundamental, and is why there have been multiple wars. This principle has been reiterated by President Abbas (“we refuse to recognize a Jewish state”) and by all the key figures in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. This intransigence by the Arabs makes peace most unlikely at the present time.
In 2000, in talks brokered by President Clinton, a two state plan was offered to the Palestinians by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. President Arafat said no, offered no alternate proposal, walked away, and started a deadly intifada. Similarly in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a deal that would have given the Palestinians the equivalent of 100% of the West Bank. This too was refused.
Why did the Palestinian Arabs shun these opportunities? Because for them preventing a Jewish state is more important than having their own state. If this were not so, a Palestinian state would have been established many years ago.
4. For the Jews, there must be a State of Israel , and it must be a Jewish state, meaning the end of subjugation as a people. This is the essence of the Zionist enterprise, a movement of national liberation for the Jewish people, who have survived 2000 years of persecution, pogroms, and mass murder.
In his recent speech to the US Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated “Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state”
No agreement is possible when one side is committed to the other's destruction. Israeli Jews are not willing to watch their state be eliminated. This means a standoff with the Arabs..
5. J Street also claims to exist to promote a two state solution. However, their version of a two state solution is one that would exist after President Obama put pressure on Israel to give in to Arab demands, thereby facilitating the scenario desired by the Arabs described above. For J Street to claim they are pro-Israel is simply untrue. Unfortunately, many American Jews accept this simplistic and completely wrong argument. Similar groups, like Jewish Voice for Peace and Tikkun, encourage criticism of Israel, and utter meaningless and false slogans, statements that have no basis in history, logic, and current realities.
Many American Jews have been seduced by the easy promises of these groups (don’t we all want peace? Why won’t Israel get with the program?) They believe that J Street is simply presenting a way to achieve progress, and is doing the work that Israel should be doing. In other words, sitting in the safety of the US, and funded by the anti-Zionist George Soros, J Street claims to know what is needed for a permanent solution, and they claim that they know better than the government of Israel, elected by the people who are facing rocket attacks and suicide bombers,
Unfortunately the presence of this attitude by some American Jews has encouraged President Obama to put pressure on only one side in the conflict, pressure to do things that will promote the achievement of the Arab goals, while endangering the Jewish state Paradoxically, all this “peace making” by President Obama, by the Quartet, by the European Union, and by the United Nations, has resulted in making a real solution more remote.
6. For the Obama administration, desperate for a foreign policy “success”, pressure on Israel makes perfect sense. The words “two states” means exactly what they want them to mean. To achieve a deal that will make the Arabs happy has greater importance than to actually have a Jewish and Arab state living in peace side by side.
Most of Obama’s advisors recommend leaning on Israel. They believe that prior and current financial and diplomatic support for Israel by the US, will now provide the needed leverage to force Israel to bow to the demands of the US. (In the condescending attitude of Tom Friedman and the New York Times, how can Netanyahu dare to say “no” to the President of the US?).
The reality is that such pressure, perceived as suicidal, has no effect on Israel, and only makes the Arabs more recalcitrant, expecting that the US and the various international bodies will do their negotiation for them and force Israel to give in to the Arab version of the two state solution.
7. There was one more historical “Two State Solution”, that occurred in 1922. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1, the British were given a mandate over the Ottoman province known as Palestine. In 1917, The British Foreign Secretary, James Arthur Balfour, indicated by letter that Palestine was to be the homeland of the Jewish people. This was later incorporated into the “Mandate for Palestine”, in which the Allied Powers agreed that the Mandate would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made in 1917, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
In 1922, Britain divided the Palestinian Mandate into two parts (two states). One part, consisting of the 74% of the Mandate, the area East of the Jordan, was made into an Arab state known as Transjordan (later Jordan), the remaining 26% was kept by the British and was intended to be the future Jewish state. This was the first two state solution, 90 years ago, designed to create an Arab state and a Jewish state.
Conclusion
Until the Arabs are willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state, there will be no solution to the conflict. The proposal of two states for two people, one Arab, one Jewish, is eminently fair. It has a long historical pedigree, including the recommendation of partition (into two states) by the UN in 1947, and achieves appropriate goals for both sides. The US Congress and the American people understand this; our Administration does not.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Why Won’t Israel make Peace?
If one pays attention to J Street, or Michael Lerner, or the editorial writers of certain newspapers, or to any of the numerous persons who believe it their solemn responsibility to disparage, dishonor, and defame the Jewish state, it is the “right wing” government of Israel that stands in the way of a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. As a lie, this one is a whopper.
As Joseph Goebbels said “ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Lies about Israel certainly fall into this category. They are repeated often, and by persons who should know better, so that even the most fervent advocates of Israel begin to wonder whether there may not be some truth to it.
Recently one of my readers expressed annoyance with my criticism of President Obama for his recommendation that Israel begin negotiations by returning to the 1949 cease fire lines. His email to me read “Nothing so far has worked. Obama is trying something new. You could at least give him credit for that. Since you are critical of him, what are your alternative suggestions?”
Sounds reasonable, except that it is based on a false premise and lack of understanding of what is required to achieve peace in that conflict.
First, this is not “something new”. In fact, Obama’s suggestion means returning to the status quo that existed from 1949 to 1967. At that time the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was in Arab hands. The Western Wall was off limits to Jews. But most importantly, there was no occupation that the Palestinians could point to. There were no Jewish settlements serving as “an impediment” to peace. And yet, for some reason, there was no peace.
The cease fire lines of 1949 set up suicidal and indefensible borders. Terrorists continually crossed these lines to kill Israelis. Syrians shot down on the farming communities of the Galilee from the Golan heights. , And Israel’s neighbors were emboldened to make war, with the single goal of extirpating the Jewish state. Is this what our President expects Israel to go back to?
Secondly, with respect to alternative recommendations. It is never possible to resolve a dispute between two parties if one of them does not want it resolved. The Palestinian Arabs have come up with a never-ending series of excuses to avoid a peace deal. They have made it clear that the only thing that will satisfy them will be a complete disappearance of the Jewish state. The only thing negotiable is whether this happens all at once or in stages.
Let’s look at the record. Attempts at peace have been made repeatedly. Recently Flame published an article outlining the many failed attempts to make peace, and outlining why intransigence by the Arabs has made peace impossible.
Even before the modern state of Israel was born, in 1947 the United Nations proposed a two state solution. The Jews accepted it, while the Arabs rejected it and started a war that resulted in the deaths of one of every 100 Israelis.
From 1949 to 1967, Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank. There was absolutely no talk of a Palestinians state at that time, though the Palestine Liberation Organization came into being during this time.. (What were they planning to liberate?)
After Israel’s victory in the Six Day War of 1967, Israel offered peace to her neighbors. The Arabs responded; “No Peace, No Negotiation, and No Recognition of Israel”. Under the direction of President Bill Clinton, a series of negotiations occurred in 2000, in which Israel offered to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Yassir Arafat turned this down, did not offer a counter proposal, but started a war. Further peace offers were made by Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, turning it over to the Palestinians.
None of this led to peace. Why? Because the Arabs have stated repeatedly, right up to the present, that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. They fully expect to be able to destroy the existing “Zionist entity”, and will not enter an agreement that will forgo the possibility of continuing the conflict.
Over the last two year, matters have gotten worse. The Palestinians, encouraged by the behavior of the Obama administration, are demanding that the US force Israel into an untenable situation which they are hoping will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state. Unfortunately President Obama has obliged them, making demands on Israel, some of which are simply suicidal, while demanding nothing of the other side. This a formula that tells the Arabs they need not negotiate, the US will do it for them. In other words, no negotiated settlement can ever happen
Many well-meaning people have asked why Israel does not simply end the occupation, and remove the settlements as a way to achieve peace. Again, this has been tried.
First, in 2000 Israeli forces vacated their buffer zone in South Lebanon with the express purpose of ending any conflict with Hezbollah; six years later, they got a war with Hezbollah anyway, a war in which thousands of missiles were fired into Israel. And now Hezbollah, massively armed, controls all of Lebanon, and threatens Israel with another war.
Secondly, in 2005, hoping again for peace, Israel pulled all its forces and settlements out of Gaza, to allow the Palestinians to develop their own autonomous state. What was the result? A major war with Hamas in 2008-9. The kidnapping Of Gilad Shalit, held for over 5 years with no Red Cross visits in violation of international law. Numerous cross border raids. Thousands of rockets and mortars that have killed and maimed civilians. Recently an anti-tank missile was fired at a school bus killing a child. This is not the hoped for peace.
Not long ago, Israel had planned to vacate the West Bank. Now that it has seen Gaza and South Lebanon turned into heavily armed staging areas, filled with terrorists dedicated to killing Jews, withdrawal from the West Bank does not seem like a wise move.
So what should Israel do? Israel cannot bring about a solution of the conflict unless the other side wants it. Hopefully, over time, a new generation of Palestinian Arabs, exposed to the internet, well- educated, and economically advanced, will see the enormous advantages of peace with Israel. Until then, Israel must remain strong, must ignore those who tell her what she must do “for her own good”, and must not bend to the whims of the New York Times or Barack Obama, would-be experts who have no idea about the historic and current realities in that part of the world.
As Joseph Goebbels said “ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Lies about Israel certainly fall into this category. They are repeated often, and by persons who should know better, so that even the most fervent advocates of Israel begin to wonder whether there may not be some truth to it.
Recently one of my readers expressed annoyance with my criticism of President Obama for his recommendation that Israel begin negotiations by returning to the 1949 cease fire lines. His email to me read “Nothing so far has worked. Obama is trying something new. You could at least give him credit for that. Since you are critical of him, what are your alternative suggestions?”
Sounds reasonable, except that it is based on a false premise and lack of understanding of what is required to achieve peace in that conflict.
First, this is not “something new”. In fact, Obama’s suggestion means returning to the status quo that existed from 1949 to 1967. At that time the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was in Arab hands. The Western Wall was off limits to Jews. But most importantly, there was no occupation that the Palestinians could point to. There were no Jewish settlements serving as “an impediment” to peace. And yet, for some reason, there was no peace.
The cease fire lines of 1949 set up suicidal and indefensible borders. Terrorists continually crossed these lines to kill Israelis. Syrians shot down on the farming communities of the Galilee from the Golan heights. , And Israel’s neighbors were emboldened to make war, with the single goal of extirpating the Jewish state. Is this what our President expects Israel to go back to?
Secondly, with respect to alternative recommendations. It is never possible to resolve a dispute between two parties if one of them does not want it resolved. The Palestinian Arabs have come up with a never-ending series of excuses to avoid a peace deal. They have made it clear that the only thing that will satisfy them will be a complete disappearance of the Jewish state. The only thing negotiable is whether this happens all at once or in stages.
Let’s look at the record. Attempts at peace have been made repeatedly. Recently Flame published an article outlining the many failed attempts to make peace, and outlining why intransigence by the Arabs has made peace impossible.
Even before the modern state of Israel was born, in 1947 the United Nations proposed a two state solution. The Jews accepted it, while the Arabs rejected it and started a war that resulted in the deaths of one of every 100 Israelis.
From 1949 to 1967, Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank. There was absolutely no talk of a Palestinians state at that time, though the Palestine Liberation Organization came into being during this time.. (What were they planning to liberate?)
After Israel’s victory in the Six Day War of 1967, Israel offered peace to her neighbors. The Arabs responded; “No Peace, No Negotiation, and No Recognition of Israel”. Under the direction of President Bill Clinton, a series of negotiations occurred in 2000, in which Israel offered to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Yassir Arafat turned this down, did not offer a counter proposal, but started a war. Further peace offers were made by Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, turning it over to the Palestinians.
None of this led to peace. Why? Because the Arabs have stated repeatedly, right up to the present, that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. They fully expect to be able to destroy the existing “Zionist entity”, and will not enter an agreement that will forgo the possibility of continuing the conflict.
Over the last two year, matters have gotten worse. The Palestinians, encouraged by the behavior of the Obama administration, are demanding that the US force Israel into an untenable situation which they are hoping will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state. Unfortunately President Obama has obliged them, making demands on Israel, some of which are simply suicidal, while demanding nothing of the other side. This a formula that tells the Arabs they need not negotiate, the US will do it for them. In other words, no negotiated settlement can ever happen
Many well-meaning people have asked why Israel does not simply end the occupation, and remove the settlements as a way to achieve peace. Again, this has been tried.
First, in 2000 Israeli forces vacated their buffer zone in South Lebanon with the express purpose of ending any conflict with Hezbollah; six years later, they got a war with Hezbollah anyway, a war in which thousands of missiles were fired into Israel. And now Hezbollah, massively armed, controls all of Lebanon, and threatens Israel with another war.
Secondly, in 2005, hoping again for peace, Israel pulled all its forces and settlements out of Gaza, to allow the Palestinians to develop their own autonomous state. What was the result? A major war with Hamas in 2008-9. The kidnapping Of Gilad Shalit, held for over 5 years with no Red Cross visits in violation of international law. Numerous cross border raids. Thousands of rockets and mortars that have killed and maimed civilians. Recently an anti-tank missile was fired at a school bus killing a child. This is not the hoped for peace.
Not long ago, Israel had planned to vacate the West Bank. Now that it has seen Gaza and South Lebanon turned into heavily armed staging areas, filled with terrorists dedicated to killing Jews, withdrawal from the West Bank does not seem like a wise move.
So what should Israel do? Israel cannot bring about a solution of the conflict unless the other side wants it. Hopefully, over time, a new generation of Palestinian Arabs, exposed to the internet, well- educated, and economically advanced, will see the enormous advantages of peace with Israel. Until then, Israel must remain strong, must ignore those who tell her what she must do “for her own good”, and must not bend to the whims of the New York Times or Barack Obama, would-be experts who have no idea about the historic and current realities in that part of the world.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Barry Rubin Looks at U.S. Middle East Policy; He finds Insanity and Danger
One of the clearest, coherent, and rational voices on events in the Islamic world is Barry Rubin. He has been commenting for some time on the insanity of US policy, as it relates to Egypt, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Lebanon, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel.
Below are two of his recent columns. In the first, he examines the pronouncements of the US Seretary of State in a press conference and uses her own words to clearly show a policy that is incoherent, ahistoric, and dangerous. In the second article, he discusses the roots of this insanity and how it might be cured. LWW
U.S. Middle East Policy Becomes Clinically Insane
By Barry Rubin
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest pronouncements are just plain horrifying. Consider what she said in this interview:
In Egypt:
"QUESTION: Should we fear the Muslim Brotherhood?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we don’t know enough yet to understand exactly what they’re morphing into. And I’m – I mean, for me, the jury is out. There are some Islamist elements that are coming to the surface to Egypt that I think on just the face of it are --
QUESTION: Coming out of jails, in fact.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Coming out in jails, coming out of the shadows that are inimical to a democracy, to the kind of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience that was the aspiration in Tahrir Square."
"We don't know enough...."
Really? Read any speech or interview by the leader and deputy leader of the Brotherhood, full of Jihadist rhetoric, genocidal rage against Jews, insistence on making Egypt an Islamist state, and loathing of America. What's morphing?
Those people "coming out of jails"
They are openly holding joint meetings and demonstrations with the Muslim Brotherhood. I know it, why doesn't she know it?
"The jury is out"
And when will the U.S. government see the danger of the Brotherhood, after it takes power and starts down the road to war with Israel and open enmity to the United States?
The jury is as much out on the Muslim Brotherhood as it is on Usama bin Laden.
On Syria
And here's another equally horrifying interview:
Q: At this point, [Syria] is a country where they have killed most people in the street.
"CLINTON: Well, I don't have that comparison, but what I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed [Libyan leader Muammar] Qadhafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria."
So the U.S. government still hopes that President Bashar al-Assad will be a reformer? I won't bother to once again list all the evidence to the contrary both in his past performance and in understanding his interests.
But here is something remarkable. Clinton mentions Qadhafi. Yet Qadhafi did "reform" his foreign policy after he was scared, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, that he'd be next on the list. So pressure showed successful results in Libya while the Obama Administration's appeasement of Syria failed totally--and will continue to fail totally.
3. Hamas
But apparently the "jury is still out" on Hamas, too. What, we don't have enough information to evaluate that group? Perhaps it is "morphing?" The Obama Administration strongly criticized Israel for withholding the transfer of tax revenue tothe Palestinian Authority. Of course, that money is only due to be handed over according to the Oslo agreement, which the PA no longer observes.
American officials said the administration, is, “Waiting to see what this reconciliation agreement looks like in practical terms, before we make any decisions about future assistance.”
Memo to Obama Administration: A country doesn't just watch and wait as others trash its interests. It does something. When one of your clients, who you are ceaselessly helping and to which you are giving large amounts of money, joins forces with an openly genocidal terrorist organization allied with your worst enemies, how long do you have to wait to see what's going to happen?
From Clinton's first interview:
We are losing the war of ideas because we are not in the arena the way we were in the Cold War."
Well, if you cannot define the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria as hostile you certainly are not in the arena. Imagine the Cold War in these terms! How long would the United States have been saying the "jury is out" on the nature of the Soviet Union?
But Clinton isn't that stupid. She's stuttering so much because she has to follow the president's political line, and that is very stupid indeed. And much worse, it is very dangerous.
The Roots of U.S. Policy Insanity in the Middle East and the Cure
This article is published in PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
Why is U.S. and European policy toward the Middle East so off-base, and why do policymakers believe the strange things they think and the crazy things they do are good strategy?
I'll focus on the U.S. government but you can adapt, as appropriate, this analysis for various European countries.
They believe--partly due to White House ideology and partly to the CIA (I don't know why the Agency is pushing this idea) that al-Qaida and perhaps much--but not necessarily all!--the Taliban is a terrible enemy of America that must be combatted because it attacks America directly with terrorism.
But since Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria don't launch terrorist attacks on American soil and installations (I'd add sarcastically: on a regular basis) they can be reasoned with and either won over or neutralized as an anti-American force.
From a narrow counter-terrorist perspective this may make some sense. But as a strategic doctrine it is disastrous. What's worse: al-Qaida committing a few terrorist attacks or the fact that those revolutionary Islamist groups and their allies rule with more than 100 million people (Iran, 78 million; Syria, 23 million; Gaza Strip, 1 million plus); with billions of dollars in assets and Iran en route to getting nuclear weapons.
Revolutionary Islamists now have the prospect of adding another 86 million people through the control of Lebanon and potentially Egypt (4 million, Lebanon; 82 million, Egypt) and are also allied with the current regime in Turkey (78 million people) which is Islamist and seems headed toward reelection.
That means that as many as 265 million people live under regimes allied against the United States and promoting a revolutionary Islamist ideology.
I don't mean to exaggerate here so you can take the above figures as pretty shocking even if not one hundred percent fully indicative of the situation. Moreover, we don't know yet what will happen in Tunisia and--despite ample U.S. involvement--Libya.
That seems pretty serious and qualifies as the leading strategic threat to the United States and the world.
Over the last 30 years the region has seen:
Iran's Islamist revolution and the seizure of American diplomats as hostages; 1982 Israel war with the PLO and Syria; Iran-Iraq war; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; civil wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the ensuing war; the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban and ensuing war; the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war; two Palestinian intifadas coupled with rejection of a compromise peace agreement that would give them a state; popular revolutionary upheavals in Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain; and massive terrorism of which the September 11 attacks are only the largest single example of many.
I think even the above list isn't complete. Virtually all of these events have been generated by revolutionary Islamism or, to a lesser extent, radical Arab nationalism which is sometimes allied with Islamism.
In the face of these facts, to ignore revolutionary Islamism as the main threat to America, the West, and the world is a pretty phenomenal conclusion. To do things like helping destabilize regimes so that the Muslim Brotherhood threatens to take over, accepting a Hamas regime in Gaza and standing by and watching a Fatah-Hamas deal, and viewing Iran as only a direct military threat that can be dealt with by conventional deterrence is suicidal.
Yet this is the road the U.S. government and much of Europe is taking.
They seem to think that if they show how much they respect Muslims in general, distance themselves from Israel, and engage the radicals in dialogue while making concessions to them, this will defuse the problem.
Amazing.
How bizarre is the situation? I have to beg people to consider that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a radical group even though every single statement of its leadership in Arabic is full of jihad, anti-Americanism, threats to wipe out Israel, and calls to make Egypt an Islamist state.
I have to explain that Hamas has in fact not accepted a two-state solution but merely will accept a Palestinian state to use as a base to wipe Israel off the map. With this two-state strategy Hamas has now come up to the level of moderation shown by the PLO...in 1974.
We know from Wikileaks that the U.S. Embassy in Turkey warned about the pro-Islamist and anti-American policy of that government yet this had no effect on U.S. policy.
Even the obvious disastrous mistakes made in Egypt earlier this year has not turned around the White House and much of the mass media to understand what's going on.
If not for a valiant battle by wiser people in the State Department, the administration would have blithely cooperated in the overthrow of Bahrain's government and replacement by largely (though not wholly) pro-Iran forces. And all the Defense Department's efforts to talk sense to the White House didn't stop the Libyan intervention.
And so on.
Consider the Usama bin Ladin funeral. A whole elaborate scenario was devised to persuade Muslims that America respected Islam. (I suspect that the president's advisor on terrorism, John Brennan, who is responsible for a large amount of this idiocy, was the source of this idea.)
Yet what happened? The funeral and burial at sea was denounced by virtually all Islamists and even mainstream clerics as a moral crime and against Islam.
This strategy just doesn't work, yet when it fails the dominant policy elite doesn't even seem to notice. What's needed is to stop throwing allies under the bus; recognize the revolutionaries as enemies; and work with moderates who oppose the spread of revolutionary Islam.
Is this really so hard to understand?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Below are two of his recent columns. In the first, he examines the pronouncements of the US Seretary of State in a press conference and uses her own words to clearly show a policy that is incoherent, ahistoric, and dangerous. In the second article, he discusses the roots of this insanity and how it might be cured. LWW
U.S. Middle East Policy Becomes Clinically Insane
By Barry Rubin
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest pronouncements are just plain horrifying. Consider what she said in this interview:
In Egypt:
"QUESTION: Should we fear the Muslim Brotherhood?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we don’t know enough yet to understand exactly what they’re morphing into. And I’m – I mean, for me, the jury is out. There are some Islamist elements that are coming to the surface to Egypt that I think on just the face of it are --
QUESTION: Coming out of jails, in fact.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Coming out in jails, coming out of the shadows that are inimical to a democracy, to the kind of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience that was the aspiration in Tahrir Square."
"We don't know enough...."
Really? Read any speech or interview by the leader and deputy leader of the Brotherhood, full of Jihadist rhetoric, genocidal rage against Jews, insistence on making Egypt an Islamist state, and loathing of America. What's morphing?
Those people "coming out of jails"
They are openly holding joint meetings and demonstrations with the Muslim Brotherhood. I know it, why doesn't she know it?
"The jury is out"
And when will the U.S. government see the danger of the Brotherhood, after it takes power and starts down the road to war with Israel and open enmity to the United States?
The jury is as much out on the Muslim Brotherhood as it is on Usama bin Laden.
On Syria
And here's another equally horrifying interview:
Q: At this point, [Syria] is a country where they have killed most people in the street.
"CLINTON: Well, I don't have that comparison, but what I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed [Libyan leader Muammar] Qadhafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria."
So the U.S. government still hopes that President Bashar al-Assad will be a reformer? I won't bother to once again list all the evidence to the contrary both in his past performance and in understanding his interests.
But here is something remarkable. Clinton mentions Qadhafi. Yet Qadhafi did "reform" his foreign policy after he was scared, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, that he'd be next on the list. So pressure showed successful results in Libya while the Obama Administration's appeasement of Syria failed totally--and will continue to fail totally.
3. Hamas
But apparently the "jury is still out" on Hamas, too. What, we don't have enough information to evaluate that group? Perhaps it is "morphing?" The Obama Administration strongly criticized Israel for withholding the transfer of tax revenue tothe Palestinian Authority. Of course, that money is only due to be handed over according to the Oslo agreement, which the PA no longer observes.
American officials said the administration, is, “Waiting to see what this reconciliation agreement looks like in practical terms, before we make any decisions about future assistance.”
Memo to Obama Administration: A country doesn't just watch and wait as others trash its interests. It does something. When one of your clients, who you are ceaselessly helping and to which you are giving large amounts of money, joins forces with an openly genocidal terrorist organization allied with your worst enemies, how long do you have to wait to see what's going to happen?
From Clinton's first interview:
We are losing the war of ideas because we are not in the arena the way we were in the Cold War."
Well, if you cannot define the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria as hostile you certainly are not in the arena. Imagine the Cold War in these terms! How long would the United States have been saying the "jury is out" on the nature of the Soviet Union?
But Clinton isn't that stupid. She's stuttering so much because she has to follow the president's political line, and that is very stupid indeed. And much worse, it is very dangerous.
The Roots of U.S. Policy Insanity in the Middle East and the Cure
This article is published in PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
Why is U.S. and European policy toward the Middle East so off-base, and why do policymakers believe the strange things they think and the crazy things they do are good strategy?
I'll focus on the U.S. government but you can adapt, as appropriate, this analysis for various European countries.
They believe--partly due to White House ideology and partly to the CIA (I don't know why the Agency is pushing this idea) that al-Qaida and perhaps much--but not necessarily all!--the Taliban is a terrible enemy of America that must be combatted because it attacks America directly with terrorism.
But since Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Syria don't launch terrorist attacks on American soil and installations (I'd add sarcastically: on a regular basis) they can be reasoned with and either won over or neutralized as an anti-American force.
From a narrow counter-terrorist perspective this may make some sense. But as a strategic doctrine it is disastrous. What's worse: al-Qaida committing a few terrorist attacks or the fact that those revolutionary Islamist groups and their allies rule with more than 100 million people (Iran, 78 million; Syria, 23 million; Gaza Strip, 1 million plus); with billions of dollars in assets and Iran en route to getting nuclear weapons.
Revolutionary Islamists now have the prospect of adding another 86 million people through the control of Lebanon and potentially Egypt (4 million, Lebanon; 82 million, Egypt) and are also allied with the current regime in Turkey (78 million people) which is Islamist and seems headed toward reelection.
That means that as many as 265 million people live under regimes allied against the United States and promoting a revolutionary Islamist ideology.
I don't mean to exaggerate here so you can take the above figures as pretty shocking even if not one hundred percent fully indicative of the situation. Moreover, we don't know yet what will happen in Tunisia and--despite ample U.S. involvement--Libya.
That seems pretty serious and qualifies as the leading strategic threat to the United States and the world.
Over the last 30 years the region has seen:
Iran's Islamist revolution and the seizure of American diplomats as hostages; 1982 Israel war with the PLO and Syria; Iran-Iraq war; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; civil wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the ensuing war; the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban and ensuing war; the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war; two Palestinian intifadas coupled with rejection of a compromise peace agreement that would give them a state; popular revolutionary upheavals in Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Bahrain; and massive terrorism of which the September 11 attacks are only the largest single example of many.
I think even the above list isn't complete. Virtually all of these events have been generated by revolutionary Islamism or, to a lesser extent, radical Arab nationalism which is sometimes allied with Islamism.
In the face of these facts, to ignore revolutionary Islamism as the main threat to America, the West, and the world is a pretty phenomenal conclusion. To do things like helping destabilize regimes so that the Muslim Brotherhood threatens to take over, accepting a Hamas regime in Gaza and standing by and watching a Fatah-Hamas deal, and viewing Iran as only a direct military threat that can be dealt with by conventional deterrence is suicidal.
Yet this is the road the U.S. government and much of Europe is taking.
They seem to think that if they show how much they respect Muslims in general, distance themselves from Israel, and engage the radicals in dialogue while making concessions to them, this will defuse the problem.
Amazing.
How bizarre is the situation? I have to beg people to consider that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a radical group even though every single statement of its leadership in Arabic is full of jihad, anti-Americanism, threats to wipe out Israel, and calls to make Egypt an Islamist state.
I have to explain that Hamas has in fact not accepted a two-state solution but merely will accept a Palestinian state to use as a base to wipe Israel off the map. With this two-state strategy Hamas has now come up to the level of moderation shown by the PLO...in 1974.
We know from Wikileaks that the U.S. Embassy in Turkey warned about the pro-Islamist and anti-American policy of that government yet this had no effect on U.S. policy.
Even the obvious disastrous mistakes made in Egypt earlier this year has not turned around the White House and much of the mass media to understand what's going on.
If not for a valiant battle by wiser people in the State Department, the administration would have blithely cooperated in the overthrow of Bahrain's government and replacement by largely (though not wholly) pro-Iran forces. And all the Defense Department's efforts to talk sense to the White House didn't stop the Libyan intervention.
And so on.
Consider the Usama bin Ladin funeral. A whole elaborate scenario was devised to persuade Muslims that America respected Islam. (I suspect that the president's advisor on terrorism, John Brennan, who is responsible for a large amount of this idiocy, was the source of this idea.)
Yet what happened? The funeral and burial at sea was denounced by virtually all Islamists and even mainstream clerics as a moral crime and against Islam.
This strategy just doesn't work, yet when it fails the dominant policy elite doesn't even seem to notice. What's needed is to stop throwing allies under the bus; recognize the revolutionaries as enemies; and work with moderates who oppose the spread of revolutionary Islam.
Is this really so hard to understand?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
