Posts
8 hours ago
Monday, 19 October 2009
Love of the Land: Post Colonialist Dogma Doesn’t Fit
Post Colonialist Dogma Doesn’t Fit
Fresnozionism.org
17 October 09
The following illustrates an argument I hear a lot:
The Palestinian Authority would not oppose the prosecution of Hamas militants on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court, Israel Radio on Saturday quoted the PA’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva as saying.
Ibrahim Khraishi reportedly made the comments after the UN Human Rights Council’s voted in favor of his motion to endorse a report accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the December-January hostilities in Gaza.
Speaking in an interview with Israel Radio, Khraishi said he had no problem in saying that legal proceedings against Israel over alleged human rights abuses should also be instigated against Palestinians. But he was quoted as adding that occupiers must not be confused with the occupied.
It’s not surprising that the PA would like to see Hamas suffer! But what I’m interested in is the phrase I boldfaced at the end.
It represents a ‘postcolonialist’ ideology, traceable to Frantz Fanonand Edward Said, that enshrines a double standard for behavior as applied, for example, to Israel and the Palestinians.
Postcolonial theory asserts that there are ’settler countries’ and ‘non-settler countries’, and of course you can imagine who are supposed to be the good guys. A great deal of effort is expended by the Arabs and their supporters to place Israel in the first group, with the Zionists in the position of colonizers of the ‘indigenous’ Palestinian Arabs. Honest historical analysis shows that in fact this is not accurate, but it’s important for them to say this in order to take advantage of the special dispensations granted to the ‘colonized’.
Here’s an example of the reasoning, as expressed in an article by Nir Rosen, an American-born journalist:
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors…
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel…
Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid in his face. “The terrorist was arrested by security forces,” the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?
The argument depends on the “overwhelming odds”, the disparity in power between the ‘colonizer and colonized’. Edward Said, the high priest of applying postcolonial theory to Israel and the Palestinians,never tired of mentioning that Israel was a “nuclear power”, as if this had some relevance to its responses to Arab terrorism!
Once it is established that one party is a ‘colonizer’ and the other ‘colonized’, the game is over. For the postcolonialist, nothing that the colonizer does to defend himself is permissible, and anything that the colonized does in the name of resistance is justified.
This is insisted upon despite the actual power relationship between the sides, which — because of the actions and constraints of outside powers and the force-multiplying effect of asymmetric warfare — may be much closer to equal than the postcolonialist wants us to think.
The postcolonialist point of view is endemic to the academic world — google ‘postcolonialism’ and you will be overwhelmed by the huge mass of professorial careers that have been built on it — but it has little applicability to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite Said’s struggle to make it appear so.
Like most grand theories — those of Marx or Freud, for example — postcolonialism gets its explanatory power when an apparently chaotic situation can be shown to be a special case of some general principles. Most such theories are inspired by a particular paradigm case; for Fanon it was the French in Martinique. Said, who was comparatively an intellectual lightweight, saw the huge power of the postcolonial metaphor to promote his own — Palestinian — cause.
Love of the Land: Post Colonialist Dogma Doesn’t Fit
Love of the Land: What Will Jones Say?
What Will Jones Say?
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
18 October 09
When last we left the J Street Conference story, the lawmaker-hosts were dropping like flies. Sens. Schumer, Gillibrand, Cochran, and Lincoln had departed, as had a growing list of congressmen. It isn’t hard to see why they might not want to appear at the confab, asthis details in reviewing some of the slated speakers and background on the J Street crowd:
- Avrum Burg, former speaker of Israel’s Knesset (parliament), is closely associated with J Street; he declared that “to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end,” then went on to compare Israel to “pre-Nazi Germany.”
- Prominent J Street member Henry Siegman compared Israel to South Africa under apartheid; he also appears to support the Walt and Mearsheimer conspiracy theory about a “Jewish lobby” that controls the American government (search onPower Line for many posts about this offensive and antisemitic absurdity — enthusiastically and monetarily endorsed by Israel’s great friend, former president Jimmy Carter);
- J Street receives much of its funding from Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations, as well as from Palestinian and Iranian lobbying groups;
- J Street is “bitterly hostile to the democratically-elected government of Israel” (especially now, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu);
- Another luminary invited to speak at the Gala Dinner is “poet” Josh Healey, who suggests that Israel is at least metaphorically “writing numbers on the wrists of babies born in the ghetto called Gaza,” yet another equation of Israel to the Nazis; Healy extols a march he joined for “Palestinian solidarity.”
But the administration isn’t running away from the Israel defamers. Oh no! The administration is sending National Security Adviser James Jones. And why wouldn’t they? J Street has been blocking and tackling for Obama’s effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel. J Street has been cheering the engagement strategy and is opposing (as the Russians, mullahs and Hillary Clinton all are) moving ahead with sanctions. Of course the Obami want to press the flesh and encourage the J Street gang. (Can we now dispense with the fiction that the Mary Robinson Medal of Freedom award was some sort of oversight? Robinson, you may recall, was supported by J Street flacks. All one big happy family.)
But what is it that Jones will say? He could review the results of the policies that J Street cheered. The “daylight between the U.S. and Israel” strategy has been a bust and Obama’s anti-Israel gambit has reduced his support in the Jewish state to 4% while bolstering Bibi Netanyahu’s standing. (Like Rahm Emanuel, J Street’s fondest hope is regime change, in democratic Israel that is.) Then there is Iran’s Qom secret facility, which would seem to suggest that engagement with deceptive thugs is a losing tactic. Maybe then some sober assessment by Jones would be in order. Hmm. That’s not likely to engender a warm reception however.
Perhaps Jones could take the opportunity to condemn the Goldstone report unequivocally, repudiating the handiwork of the UN Human Rights Council. That would be a breath of fresh air. But again, not what the J Street crowd is looking for. (Like Chas Freeman, when the ugliest of Israel bashers emerges, J Street goes mute.) Maybe Jones will have the nerve to restate the administration’s opposition to negotiating with Hamas. Still, that is a view that doesn’t sit so well with the J Street crowd.
In sum, Jones will have a choice — ingratiate himself with the grab-bag of left-wingers masquerading as a “pro-Israel” outfit ,or put some … what is the word?… ah, daylightbetween the administration and the Israel-bashers. The spotlight will certainly be on him, and the expectations are high to make clear just how far the Obami are willing to go in alienating Israel and taking issue with the large majority of Americans (Jews and otherwise) who favor both sanctions and a military option to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. By showing up at the Israel-hate fest, the administration is going where no other administration, it is safe to say, would be willing to be seen. Now let’s see what they make of the visit.
Love of the Land: What Will Jones Say?
Love of the Land: How did the democracies and the dictatorships vote in UN Human Rights Council resolution against Israel?
How did the democracies and the dictatorships vote in UN Human Rights Council resolution against Israel?
Robin Shepherd
Think Tank Blog
17 October 09
I’m not going to waste everyone’s time with a detailed breakdown of Friday’s farce at the United Nations in which the laughably named “Human Rights Council” passed a resolution against Israel and affirmed the notoriously skewed and distorted Goldstone Report on Gaza. Israel bashing is what it is. We’ve seen it all before and we’ll see it again.
What interests me today is less the “what”? and the “why”? than the “who”? For we know that sickness and depravity over Israel is par for the course these days at the United Nations. What matters more is who participates in it, who turns a blind eye and who has the courage to stand up and confront it.
So let’s see how countries supporting the resolution, opposing it, abstaining from it or not voting stand up on a group by group basis when compared to their freedom rankings by Freedom House. The countries which voted in favour of the resolution were as follows.
Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Zambia.
The countries which voted against are as follows:
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine, United States of America.
The countries which abstained are as follows:
Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay.
The countries which did not vote are as follows:
Angola, France, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar and Britain
Among the supporters of the resolution, the presence of so many despotisms as well as many others that are ranked by Freedom House as only “partly free” speaks for itself. Countries ranked as “not free” by Freedom House in the group are: China, Cuba, Egypt, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Partly free countries in the group are: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Djibouti, Jordan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Zambia. Of the 25 countries who voted against Israel 17 (68 %) are either outright despotisms or are seedy and corrupt pseudo-democracies.
Among those which opposed the resolution it is noteworthy that for all the criticism visited against the Obama administration the outstanding name in the group is the United States of America. It is also worth noting that all states in the group are democracies and all (100%) are ranked in the top category for freedom by Freedom House.
Among the abstainers it’s a bit of a mixed bag: Bosnia-Herzogovina, Burkina Faso, Gabon (partly free); Cameroon (not free); the rest (free). So of the 11 abstainers 36% are not free.
Among those who didn’t vote it is, once again, a mixed bag: Angola, (not free); Krgyzstan, Madagascar (partly free); Britain and France (free). In other words, 60% of this group do not meet the standard of being a free country according to the Freedom House framework.
For the record, Israel resides in Freedom House’s top category as a fully free country.
Now, one can play with statistics endlessly and there are many other ways of breaking down voting patterns in the UN Human Rights Council.
I just have one question at this stage: what were Britain and France doing in the bathroom with Angola, Kyrgyzstan and Madagascar while some of the worst dictatorships in the world were passing a resolution against Israel’s human rights record?
Love of the Land: How did the democracies and the dictatorships vote in UN Human Rights Council resolution against Israel?
Love of the Land: A Syrian Blogger Silenced
A Syrian Blogger Silenced
David Keyes
Adelson Institute
Reposted 18 October 09
David Keyes, Coordinator for Programs in Democracy at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, writes about the fate of a Syrian freedom fighter and the mistakes of an American Administration. Read also in Point of View on Why Russia is Not Afraid of an Iranian Bomb by Boris Morozov andThe Goldstone Factor by Yossi Klein Halevi.
When Syrian deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad visited Washington in early October, he became the highest-ranking Syrian to visit America in half a decade. During his visit, Mekdad lavishly praised President Obama and his dialogue-based approach towards the Middle East. Nothing could be better proof that Washington is pursuing failed policies in the region. When the senior representatives of a ruthless dictatorship praise you, chances are you are doing something very wrong.
Mekdad, and his boss Bashar al-Assad, are clearly relieved that President Obama loosened sanctions on Syria this past July. They know that America is determined to pry Syria away from the Iran-Hezbollah axis and they are playing it for all it's worth. While Americans rejoice at every step in this process, the Assad dictatorship remains as oppressive as ever. Only two and a half weeks prior to the deputy Foreign Minister's sycophantic gushing over President Obama in Washington, his government was sentencing bloggers to prison for the unthinkable "crime" of voicing dissent.
Consider the case of Kareem Arabji, a 31 year old business consultant who helps manage the online youth forumwww.akhawia.net. Kareem supervised Al Mabar Al Hur, a section within akhawia.net dedicated to free ideas, and wrote numerous articles under a pseudonym criticizing corruption and dictatorship in Syria. On June 7, 2007 Arabji was arrested by Syrian security forces and held incommunicado at the Palestine Branch of Military Intelligence in Damascus. He was charged with, "broadcasting false or exaggerated news which would affect the morale of the country.”
Just what outrageous, unforgivable words did Kareem utter that so threatened the Syrian nation? "The press is a very important mechanism to struggle against the corruption, there should not be any restrictions or obstacles to it," he wrote in Akhawia. Or perhaps it was his skepticism of the Syria-Hamas alliance: "Since I was a kid in school we were always taught that the Muslim Brotherhood is a criminal gang, and I agree. And now we proudly consider Hamas, which is a Muslim Brotherhood proxy, as an ally!!!?"
On September 13, 2009, Arabji was sentenced by a Syrian court to three years in prison.
Did President Obama raise Arabji's imprisonment while his tormentor toured Washington? No. To do so would be to jeopardize "peace," "diplomacy" or some other fiction masquerading as prudence which in actuality prolongs a hideous tyranny. Mekdad's visit was a golden opportunity to make Arabji's name as famous as Havel, Bukovsky and Sharansky once were. Instead, the most powerful nation in history remained silent.
In theory, President Obama's approach makes perfect sense. Encourage Syria to moderate its policies and tilt Westward instead of Iran-ward. But as the idiom goes: In theory there is no difference between theory and reality, but in reality there is. Not only is America feeding an alligator hoping to be eaten last, but the Obama administration does not grasp that true peace and lasting regional stability cannot be purchased at the expense of human liberty. If Syria cuts its ties with Iran, but remains a fearful, impoverished, repressive and conspiratorial society, the West--let alone the Syrian people-- are no better off. America's goal should be to terrorize the Syrian dictator more than he terrorizes his bloggers.. Sakharov and Sharansky's brilliant dictum is simple enough: A nation can only be trusted as much as its leaders trust their own citizens. By this standard, America should be isolating and punishing Syria, rather than appeasing and rewarding it.
Despite a sustained public relations campaign in the West, Syria remains one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East. Those who voice dissent are regularly intimidated, arrested, tortured and imprisoned. In September 2009 the Jordanian Business Magazine reported that Syria blocks at least "160 web sites, including Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, and the popular online-telephone service, Skype." Cyberdissidents such as Arabji face regular harassment from security forces. Ironically, article 38 of the Syrian constitution allows "the right to freely express one's opinions by spoken word, in writing or in any other medium." But this is little more than hollow rhetoric. The same article also states that expression must be in a "manner that safeguards the soundness of the domestic and nationalist structure and strengthens the socialist system." This clause effectively guts any true form of freedom of expression in Syria.
What kind of regime tortures bloggers and shuts down Facebook? Only one that is terrified of truth and free thinking. This, ultimately, is a sign of deep insecurity, not strength. The good news is that although political repression can work for a time, the forward march of history records that few forces are as powerful as a liberated soul. Someone should tell this to Obama.
David Keyes is the Director of Cyberdissidents.org and the Coordinator for Democracy Programs at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.
Love of the Land: A Syrian Blogger Silenced
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Heliborne?
Heliborne?
On page 200 of the Goldstone Report we find this sentence:
706. The Israeli ground offensive from the east reached al-Samouni neighbourhood around 4 a.m. on 4 January 2009. In addition to the ground forces moving in from the east, there were, in all likelihood, heliborne398 troops that landed on the roofs of several houses in the area.
Should you wonder what that means, heliborne troops (and how would the Commission members have known?), you can follow footnote 398:
One witness told the Mission that on 5 January 2009, walking on Salah ad-Din Street towards Gaza, he saw by the roadside parachutes Israeli troops had used to land in the area.
Israel has not used parachutes in battle since 1956. I've never heard of parachutists in any army jumping from helicopters, because the two methods contradict one another. Parachutists jump from mid-altitude airplanes, and aim at large areas since they cannot be guided to precise points. Helicopters land troops on precise points; the troops jump out from a height of a foot, or three.
I haven't heard of Israeli troops being flown by helicopter into battle in Gaza, but who knows? Maybe it happened. If so, eyewitnesses would be able to tell about it in one, very clear case: if they saw the helicopters coming in, effectively landing, and then leaving troops behind them. It's that simple.
The story told by the witness is straight from some Arabian tall tale. I am totally at loss for an explanation as to why the fact finders would have wished to cast themselves as giving the time of day to such fabulists, but I'm at loss for an explanation about lots of things in their report. Keep in mind, however, that one of the four members was chosen for being a military man, and some of their staff were hired for their military expertize, so it's not that they didn't know better.
I haven't heard of Israeli troops being flown by helicopter into battle in Gaza, but who knows? Maybe it happened. If so, eyewitnesses would be able to tell about it in one, very clear case: if they saw the helicopters coming in, effectively landing, and then leaving troops behind them. It's that simple.
The story told by the witness is straight from some Arabian tall tale. I am totally at loss for an explanation as to why the fact finders would have wished to cast themselves as giving the time of day to such fabulists, but I'm at loss for an explanation about lots of things in their report. Keep in mind, however, that one of the four members was chosen for being a military man, and some of their staff were hired for their military expertize, so it's not that they didn't know better.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Climate Change and Wars
Climate Change and Wars
Remember that time the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize gang awarded an American politician because his politics were right? No, not two weeks ago. And no, not Jimmy Carter. The 2007 prize, Al Gore and the UN Climate Change Panel.
Well, somebody did some fact checking:
Well, somebody did some fact checking:
THE starkest views of climate change paint war as a looming threat. The
idea that violence will erupt as drought and rising sea levels displace people
from their homes is, in part, why the Nobel prize for peace was awarded in 2007
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. Yet a newly
published study analysing the historical connection between war and climate
throws into question the assumption that rising temperatures and violence go
hand in hand.
Rather, the researchers tell, if the technology to deal with change is there, the change need not be threatening:
The lesson, rather, is that the way to minimise the likelihood of
climate-induced conflict in the future is to continue the process of crop
improvement (for example, by taking advantage of the potential of genetic
engineering) so that heat- and drought-tolerant varieties are available; to make
farmers aware of these new crops and encourage their use; and to promote free
trade and non-agricultural economic development.
Though, truth be told, at the very end of the article there's still this bit of wishful thinking:
That way people will have no cause to fight, and tyrants no excuse to stir them
up.
Touching isn't it. The assumption that people fight only for rational reasons. Here, see if you can apply it on this list.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Suicide Murders Against Muslims
Suicide Murders Against Muslims
Jeffrey Goldberg tells an interesting story:
Nine years ago, I was in Cairo for an emergency meeting of the Arab League,
which had gathered to discuss the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada.
Most everyone at the meeting was supportive of the Palestinian right, such as it
is, to use suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. Even Amr Moussa, who was
soon to become the secretary-general of the League, argued to me that suicide
bombing represented a legitimate attempt at self-defense. When I saw Moussa in
Cairo, I argued with him about this support. It seemed to me that Arab leaders
would one day reap the whirlwind for their endorsement of this gruesome terror
tactic, and I told him so. But he argued back, saying that the tragic and unique
reality of Palestine -- the special "desperation" of the Palestinians -- meant
that the tactic of sucide bombing would never spread beyond the borders of this
one conflict.. He was wrong, of course, and many more Muslims have since died in
attacks committed by suicide bombers than have Jews or Christians.
So Amr Moussa sincerely felt the Israelis were (are?) uniquely evil, did he. Today the suicidists have added the Iranian leadership to their list of enemies so evil one should die to kill them. It's a very long list.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Educated Haredim
Educated Haredim
The academic year started this morning. My son who's at Tel Aviv U called me earlier - he hadn't taken his Notebook this morning, and could I please use his password to find his personal section on the university's website to look up the classroom he was supposed to be in, because the information on the board in the entrance to the building was clearly wrong.
I'm reasonably technically literate as old codgers go, but the way technology has changed the way we do things can still give me pause.
So it's good to see yet another little piece of evidence that our Haredi community is finally accepting their need to have academic qualifications. They're moving incrementally, not revolutionarily, but they're moving. This is important for all of us, on many levels. It will enahnce their ability to pay for themselves; it will enrich their lives; it will enrich ours, too, if this rapidly growing minority among us figures out how to combine modernity with tradition better than they've been doing.
I'm reasonably technically literate as old codgers go, but the way technology has changed the way we do things can still give me pause.
So it's good to see yet another little piece of evidence that our Haredi community is finally accepting their need to have academic qualifications. They're moving incrementally, not revolutionarily, but they're moving. This is important for all of us, on many levels. It will enahnce their ability to pay for themselves; it will enrich their lives; it will enrich ours, too, if this rapidly growing minority among us figures out how to combine modernity with tradition better than they've been doing.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Bombing Civilians
Bombing Civilians
The New York Times magazine has a long profile of Stanley McChrystal, written by Dexter Filkins, who made the effort of embedding with a number of American fighting units in Helmand last summer, before talking to the usual suspects Stateside.
He appears to be an impressive man, does the General. I especially liked this little snippet
He appears to be an impressive man, does the General. I especially liked this little snippet
Yet for all his asceticism, McChrystal displays a subtlety that suggests a wider
view of the world. “If you were to go into his house, he has this unreal
library,” Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, McChrystal’s intelligence chief and longtime
friend, told me this summer. “You can go over and touch a binding and ask him,
‘What’s that one about?’ And he’ll just start. His bad habit is wandering around
old bookstores. He’s not one of these guys that just reads military books. He
reads about weird things too. He’s reading a book about Shakespeare right now.”
Indeed, weird.
President Obama hired him for his present job, and I'm unabashedly hoping Obama will let him try to do his job as he understands it. Still, here's a story about how the war in Afghanistan was waged for its first eight years, and apparently sometimes still is, in spite of the General's attempts to change things. It's a story about a standard morning conference with the five generals who serve directly under McChrystal - an American, a German, an Italian, an Dutchman and a Frenchman:
One by one, the generals scrolled through the events from the day before: a
roadside bomb in Khost, small-arms fire in Ghazni, a British soldier killed in
Helmand Province. Then one of the European generals started talking about an
airstrike. A group of Taliban insurgents had attacked a coalition convoy, and
the soldiers called for air support. A Hellfire missile, the European general
said, obliterated an Afghan compound. The general — he cannot be named because
of the confidentiality of the meeting — was moving on to the next topic when
McChrystal stopped him.
“Can you come back to that, please?” McChrystal said. McChrystal’s voice is higher than you would expect for a four-star general.
“Yes, sir,” the European general said.“We just struck a compound,” McChrystal said. “I would like for you to explain to me the process you used to shoot a Hellfire missile into a compound that might have had
civilians in it.”
The European commander looked at an aide and muttered something. The killing of Afghan civilians, usually caused by inadvertent American and NATO airstrikes, has become the most sensitive issue between the Afghans and their Western guests. Each time civilians are killed, the Taliban launch a campaign of very public propaganda.
“Were there civilians in that compound?” McChrystal asked. He was leaning into the microphone on the table.
The commander started to talk, but McChrystal kept going. “Who made that
decision?” McChrystal said.
An aide handed the European general a sheaf of papers.
“I’m sorry, but the system is not responsive enough for us to get that kind of information that quickly,” the general said.
McChrystal’s face began to tighten. Generals tend to treat one another with the utmost deference.
“We bomb a compound, and I don’t know about it until the next morning?” McChrystal said. “Don’t just tell me, ‘Yeah, it’s O.K.’ I want to know about it. I’m being a hard-ass about it.”
The European general looked down at his papers. “It seems it was not a Hellfire missile but a 500-pound bomb,” he said.
McChrystal took off his reading glasses and looked around the room — at the video screens and the other American officers.
“Gentlemen, we need to understand the implications of what we are doing,” he said. “Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction. A guy with a long-barrel rifle
runs into a compound, and we drop a 500-pound bomb on it? Civilian casualties
are not just some reality with the Washington press. They are a reality for the
Afghan people. If we use airpower irresponsibly, we can lose this fight.”
A European general. We're not told his nationality, but I'd love to know how the ambassador of his nation voted last week at the UNHRC as it tore into Israel for the way it wages war.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
RubinReports: Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban
Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban
Please Subscribe to Rubin Reports so you don't miss a single article.
By Barry Rubin
When reality breaks into the mainstream media it can be of earthquake intensity. Such is the New York Times article by David Rohde, a journalist held prisoner by the Taliban for over seven months and finally released.
Rohde's conclusions aren't of much comfort for the Obama Administration, or for those who are naive about radical Islamists, or indeed for his fellow journalists. But his honest thinking out loud should affect their writings and policies.
During his captivity, Rohde writes:
"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the
organization as a form of `Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan."
But he came to understand from close observation as a prisoner:
"I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious....They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al-Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.
With some important differences--and minus the al-Qaida (my preferred spelling) link, the same points apply to Hamas, Hizballah, the Iraqi insurgents, and Iran's regime. These are not moderate forces and won't be persuaded to change. And with another step downward in intensity--they use tactics other than violence, for example--he is also describing the anti-Iran Muslim Brotherhood groups, the Turkish regime (Islamism in one country), and a lot of the Islamists operating in Europe and America under "moderate" cover.
Then there's Rohde's second point:
"I had written about the ties between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban while covering the region for The New York Times. I knew Pakistan turned a blind eye to many of their activities. But I was astonished by what I encountered firsthand: a Taliban mini-state
that flourished openly and with impunity."
Or, in other words (and as Indian analysts keep trying to explain to the West), large elements of the Pakistani regime, military, and intelligence are the Taliban's best allies, as well as the sponsors of a variety of Islamist terrorist groups targeting India.
Yet it is that very country, Pakistan, that U.S. policy wants to depend on to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. Washington ignores Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, deep involvement in the dreadful Mumbai attack and other operations into India, and laziness in battling the Taliban and al-Qaida.
This doesn't mean that the Obama Administration should escalate or keep fighting directly in Afghanistan--I think that's a bad idea--but has to wake up and deal with the realities of that area.
After all, when Rohde speaks of his illusions about the Taliban, he is describing the policy line being pursued by high-ranking U.S. officials who have spoken of a moderate Taliban (like Hizballah's or Hamas's fabled and mythical "political wings") or even how the Taliban as a whole can be courted in order to fight better against al-Qaida.
Rohde is no longer a prisoner of the Taliban, but Washington is still the prisoner of terrible ideas about foreign policy.
By Barry Rubin
When reality breaks into the mainstream media it can be of earthquake intensity. Such is the New York Times article by David Rohde, a journalist held prisoner by the Taliban for over seven months and finally released.
Rohde's conclusions aren't of much comfort for the Obama Administration, or for those who are naive about radical Islamists, or indeed for his fellow journalists. But his honest thinking out loud should affect their writings and policies.
During his captivity, Rohde writes:
"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the
organization as a form of `Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan."
But he came to understand from close observation as a prisoner:
"I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious....They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al-Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.
With some important differences--and minus the al-Qaida (my preferred spelling) link, the same points apply to Hamas, Hizballah, the Iraqi insurgents, and Iran's regime. These are not moderate forces and won't be persuaded to change. And with another step downward in intensity--they use tactics other than violence, for example--he is also describing the anti-Iran Muslim Brotherhood groups, the Turkish regime (Islamism in one country), and a lot of the Islamists operating in Europe and America under "moderate" cover.
Then there's Rohde's second point:
"I had written about the ties between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban while covering the region for The New York Times. I knew Pakistan turned a blind eye to many of their activities. But I was astonished by what I encountered firsthand: a Taliban mini-state
that flourished openly and with impunity."
Or, in other words (and as Indian analysts keep trying to explain to the West), large elements of the Pakistani regime, military, and intelligence are the Taliban's best allies, as well as the sponsors of a variety of Islamist terrorist groups targeting India.
Yet it is that very country, Pakistan, that U.S. policy wants to depend on to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. Washington ignores Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, deep involvement in the dreadful Mumbai attack and other operations into India, and laziness in battling the Taliban and al-Qaida.
This doesn't mean that the Obama Administration should escalate or keep fighting directly in Afghanistan--I think that's a bad idea--but has to wake up and deal with the realities of that area.
After all, when Rohde speaks of his illusions about the Taliban, he is describing the policy line being pursued by high-ranking U.S. officials who have spoken of a moderate Taliban (like Hizballah's or Hamas's fabled and mythical "political wings") or even how the Taliban as a whole can be courted in order to fight better against al-Qaida.
Rohde is no longer a prisoner of the Taliban, but Washington is still the prisoner of terrible ideas about foreign policy.
RubinReports: Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban
RubinReports: How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy
How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE: RAISE MY MORALE AND DON'T MISS A SINGLE ARTICLE
By Barry Rubin
The Obama Administration apparently thinks that its policy of engaging repressive radical anti-American dictators has been working so well as to extend it now to Sudan. This is the meaning of the new policy to be on this issue October 19.
That country’s government, once accused of genocide in the south, is now said to have been doing the same thing in the west. Mass murder and ferocious repression—300,000 people have been killed; 2.7 million made refugees--has been so prevalent that the country’s president Omar al-Bashir is under an international indictment for war crimes and Sudan is on the State Department list as a country sponsoring terrorism.
Far from being inconvenienced by this fact, however, Sudan has been playing a leading role in the effort to do the same to Israel: that is, wipe it out while simultaneously accusing it of war crimes. Sudan is the current leader of the “non-aligned” group at the UN, the largest bloc of members, and one of the main countries pushing to indict Israel for war crimes.
So to anyone who understands how international affairs works it would appear:
A. That the United States is rewarding Sudan for its behavior.
B. That the United States has already reached an agreement with Sudan that it will act differently at home and in the UN before giving it a big concession.
C. The United States is afraid of Sudan.
None of the above points are true. Therefore, this raises a case study regarding the most important issue of all whose absence from the Obama Administration list of priorities is most noticeable on every issue:
What will the Sudanese government do for the United States? Imagine, in the same week that Khartoum has flouted U.S. interests by pushing the Goldstone report through the UN Human Rights Council, Washington is going to reward it with a renewed relationship.
This sounds familiar:
The U.S. government announced the withdrawal of a plan to put anti-missile missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland at a time when Russia’s leader rejects sanctions on Iran and reaffirms the rationale for annexing much of Poland in 1939.
The U.S. government agreed to engage Iran immediately following the stealing of an election there and the repression of peaceful dissidents.
So we see the same pattern:
--A major concession while receiving nothing in exchange.
--The timing of a concession at a moment when the other side is acting in a particularly aggressive manner.
This is justified, however, by what might well be called the administration’s “cookie” philosophy. This was expressed by retired Major General J. Scott Gration, who has been handling U.S. policy toward Sudan. The former general, who has no previous diplomatic experience—something he has in common with the president—explained, "We've got to think about giving out cookies,’ said Gration. `Kids, countries--they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
No, that’s not how things work. Reality is better expressed by a Sudanese dissident who said that U.S. rapprochement with the regime will give it confidence to crack down all the harder and, I might add, be more aggressive abroad. That’s precisely, by the way, the effect of the policy on Iran and elsewhere.
So how does the administration guard against such an outcome? It warns that the violence and humanitarian abuses must stop. But a verbal warning from a government eager to renounce toughness and eager to forget all trespasses against U.S. interests is not exactly credible.
You see, the argument is that engagement will make the lives of people in Sudan better and persuade the regime from stopping its sponsorship of terrorism. In principle, this is a reasonable argument but only if three conditions are met:
--Real pressure is applied.
--Concrete, material proof is presented by that country’s behavior before the benefits are provided.
--There is real evidence the regime wants to change its behavior.
All these conditions are lacking regarding Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and every other country the administration is coddling. One can add the Palestinian Authority to the list.
But here’s the problem: If the United States demands that these countries do something, they won’t. This has certain implications:
--U.S. policy toward them will appear to have failed, thus making the administration look bad.
--They will be angry and denounce Obama, thus undercutting his vaunted international popularity.
--The resulting friction might force the United States to engage in tough measures, which could be seen as imperialist bullying.
--Friction could lead to military measures, thus pressing the United States toward having to use force or the threat of force, which would damage the administration’s argument that “soft power” works.
I am not being cynical or joking in providing this list. Such things are the ideas and goals which paralyze the Obama Administration from the kind of policy needed in today’s world.
Equally, there is nothing either conservative or liberal in this analysis. It is the framework by which almost all previous American presidents have conducted foreign polic. If anything, liberals have historically been far more forthright in wanting to pressure repressive dictatorships. Yet here is a presidency supposedly built on compassion whose policy means that Sudan’s people will suffer even more.
By Barry Rubin
The Obama Administration apparently thinks that its policy of engaging repressive radical anti-American dictators has been working so well as to extend it now to Sudan. This is the meaning of the new policy to be on this issue October 19.
That country’s government, once accused of genocide in the south, is now said to have been doing the same thing in the west. Mass murder and ferocious repression—300,000 people have been killed; 2.7 million made refugees--has been so prevalent that the country’s president Omar al-Bashir is under an international indictment for war crimes and Sudan is on the State Department list as a country sponsoring terrorism.
Far from being inconvenienced by this fact, however, Sudan has been playing a leading role in the effort to do the same to Israel: that is, wipe it out while simultaneously accusing it of war crimes. Sudan is the current leader of the “non-aligned” group at the UN, the largest bloc of members, and one of the main countries pushing to indict Israel for war crimes.
So to anyone who understands how international affairs works it would appear:
A. That the United States is rewarding Sudan for its behavior.
B. That the United States has already reached an agreement with Sudan that it will act differently at home and in the UN before giving it a big concession.
C. The United States is afraid of Sudan.
None of the above points are true. Therefore, this raises a case study regarding the most important issue of all whose absence from the Obama Administration list of priorities is most noticeable on every issue:
What will the Sudanese government do for the United States? Imagine, in the same week that Khartoum has flouted U.S. interests by pushing the Goldstone report through the UN Human Rights Council, Washington is going to reward it with a renewed relationship.
This sounds familiar:
The U.S. government announced the withdrawal of a plan to put anti-missile missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland at a time when Russia’s leader rejects sanctions on Iran and reaffirms the rationale for annexing much of Poland in 1939.
The U.S. government agreed to engage Iran immediately following the stealing of an election there and the repression of peaceful dissidents.
So we see the same pattern:
--A major concession while receiving nothing in exchange.
--The timing of a concession at a moment when the other side is acting in a particularly aggressive manner.
This is justified, however, by what might well be called the administration’s “cookie” philosophy. This was expressed by retired Major General J. Scott Gration, who has been handling U.S. policy toward Sudan. The former general, who has no previous diplomatic experience—something he has in common with the president—explained, "We've got to think about giving out cookies,’ said Gration. `Kids, countries--they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
No, that’s not how things work. Reality is better expressed by a Sudanese dissident who said that U.S. rapprochement with the regime will give it confidence to crack down all the harder and, I might add, be more aggressive abroad. That’s precisely, by the way, the effect of the policy on Iran and elsewhere.
So how does the administration guard against such an outcome? It warns that the violence and humanitarian abuses must stop. But a verbal warning from a government eager to renounce toughness and eager to forget all trespasses against U.S. interests is not exactly credible.
You see, the argument is that engagement will make the lives of people in Sudan better and persuade the regime from stopping its sponsorship of terrorism. In principle, this is a reasonable argument but only if three conditions are met:
--Real pressure is applied.
--Concrete, material proof is presented by that country’s behavior before the benefits are provided.
--There is real evidence the regime wants to change its behavior.
All these conditions are lacking regarding Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and every other country the administration is coddling. One can add the Palestinian Authority to the list.
But here’s the problem: If the United States demands that these countries do something, they won’t. This has certain implications:
--U.S. policy toward them will appear to have failed, thus making the administration look bad.
--They will be angry and denounce Obama, thus undercutting his vaunted international popularity.
--The resulting friction might force the United States to engage in tough measures, which could be seen as imperialist bullying.
--Friction could lead to military measures, thus pressing the United States toward having to use force or the threat of force, which would damage the administration’s argument that “soft power” works.
I am not being cynical or joking in providing this list. Such things are the ideas and goals which paralyze the Obama Administration from the kind of policy needed in today’s world.
Equally, there is nothing either conservative or liberal in this analysis. It is the framework by which almost all previous American presidents have conducted foreign polic. If anything, liberals have historically been far more forthright in wanting to pressure repressive dictatorships. Yet here is a presidency supposedly built on compassion whose policy means that Sudan’s people will suffer even more.
RubinReports: How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy
Israel Matzav: 'Don't go breaking my....'
'Don't go breaking my....'
This is a little raunchy for this site - I hope you'll all forgive me.It's from The Nose on Your Face....
Let's go to the videotape.
Israel Matzav: 'Don't go breaking my....'
Israel Matzav: Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel
Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel
Haaretz reports that the Obama administration is using the Goldstone Report as a club against Israel.
Even if the legal process that Goldstone initiated ends up being halted, and Israel is not put in the dock in The Hague, its hands have been tied. The world, led by Obama, will not let it initiate a Cast Lead II operation. Certainly not when a right-wing government is in power in Jerusalem led by Benjamin Netanyahu, whom the world loves to hate. Netanyahu's clumsy attempt, in his Knesset speech this week, to link the war in Gaza to opposition leader Tzipi Livni did not really succeed. He is in power and the world considers him responsible. The Americans and the Europeans are using the Goldstone report to punish Netanyahu for his refusal to freeze the settlements.You can take that with a grain of salt, since it's Haaretz and it was written by Aluf Benn. But he's right that Obama and the Europeans may well use the Goldstone Report as a club against Israel. The good news is that there is almost no backing in Israel for a total 'settlement freeze' as demanded by Obama (not even from Livni by the way). If Netanyahu is going down, everyone else is going down with him.
Israel Matzav: Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
