Baruch Dayan HaEmet (May the True Judge Be Blessed)
Professor Barry Rubin, who was an inspiration and a wealth of knowledge for just about anyone who wrote a pro-Israel blog, passed away this morning. He was 64.
His Facebook page carried this message:
To our great sadness, Barry Rubin passed away this morning. He was surrounded by his wife and children. Your love, support, and prayers have been greatly appreciated. There will be shiva and a funeral, details to follow soon.
Barry Rubin’s was a rare voices of clarity in the Israeli academia and in Jewish media. He was one of the good guys. A native of the United States, Barry Rubin was director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), and a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel. He was also editor of the journal Turkish Studies.
His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include 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).
He wrote regularly in his blog, Rubin Reports, which was regularly featured on the JewishPress.com website. He is also Middle East editor and columnist at PJMedia.
Barry Rubin described his professional life:
It’s like an iceberg. What you see is only a small portion of what goes on behind the scenes, including contacts with people all over the region, sometimes people whose lives would be in danger if it were known they were talking to me. As an Israeli, I often find it’s much easier to talk with Turks, Iranians and Arabs because we are on the same page – especially in private – about understanding the reality of the region compared to the fantasies often held in Western academic, media and governmental circles.
He is survived by his wife Judith Colp Rubin and their two children.
It was amazing seeing Barry forge ahead book after book, conference after conference, long after I knew he had been diagnosed with cancer.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, March 17.
1) When elephants crash land
Recently, I brought up an example of how Professor Barry Rubin handled a
mistake. First he admitted it. Then he explained the forces involved.
His behavior showed a few things.
1) He is serious about what he has written.
2) He respects his audience's intelligence.
Neither of these qualities can be attributed to Thomas Friedman.
A few weeks ago, Friedman wrote a column in which he faulted the Muslim
Brotherhood for failing to govern Egypt effectively. Nowhere, in the
essay does Friedman acknowledge that he had misunderstood the revolution
in Egypt from the start.
Well, that’s what happened here. The ferocity and popularity of
Mubarak’s ouster should have told Israelis that they need to get to work
immediately on building a relationship with the dynamic new popular
trend here, not to be trying to cling to a dictator who was totally out
of touch with his people. And, as we sit here today, the popular trend
is not with the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, what makes the uprising here
so impressive – and in that sense so dangerous to other autocracies in
the region – is precisely the fact that it is not owned by, and was not
inspired by, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Finally, there is the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood itself. While the
likelihood of the Brotherhood taking power in the near future is very
low, the chance of it gaining power in the long run is now enhanced. At
any rate, the Brotherhood is going to be an important force in Egypt and
perhaps an influence on the government. As it spreads its message of
hate, this is not likely to lead to a love-fest for Israel.
...
But won’t the Egyptians just concentrate on raising living standards and
enjoying freedoms? Perhaps. Yet the problem is that there is no money
for improving the Egyptian economy and angry frustration is more likely
than prosperity. We have seen often in the Arab world how a government
that cannot deliver the goods provides foreign scapegoats instead.
Last year, when it became clear that the Muslim Brotherhood had emerged as the leading force of the revolution, Friedman wrote Watching Elephants Fly:
SOMEDAY I’d love to create a journalism course based on covering the
uprising in Egypt, now approaching its first anniversary. Lesson No. 1
would be the following: Whenever you see elephants flying, shut up and
take notes. The Egyptian uprising is the equivalent of elephants flying.
No one predicted it, and no one had seen this before. If you didn’t see
it coming, what makes you think you know where it’s going? That’s why
the smartest thing now is to just shut up and take notes.
If you do, the first thing you’ll write is that the Islamist parties —
the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist Al Nour Party — just crushed the
secular liberals, who actually sparked the rebellion here, in the free
Egyptian parliamentary elections, winning some 65 percent of the seats.
To not be worried about the theocratic, antipluralistic,
anti-women’s-rights, xenophobic strands in these Islamist parties is to
be recklessly naïve. But to assume that the Islamists will not be
impacted, or moderated, by the responsibilities of power, by the
contending new power centers here and by the priority of the public for
jobs and clean government is to miss the dynamism of Egyptian politics
today.
The Islamists were taking power and here's Friedman assuring us that
they will be moderated by the responsibilities of governance. Note too,
how he uses his authority as a journalist to assure us that he knows
more than the rest of us. (I guess this is an implicit acknowledgement
that he got the Egyptian revolution wrong at first. As an admission it's
a pretty weak one.)
But there’s even more irony here. These women are already living lives
governed by Sharia and, as traditionalists, are happy (and told to be
happy) with that situation. Thus, they have ample reason for supporting
Islamists. There is nothing surprising in their political behavior,
except to people like Friedman who predicted last year they would back
liberal, Westernized Facebook kids.
The Brotherhood, though, doesn’t just need a new governing strategy. It
needs to understand that its version of political Islam — which is
resistant to women’s empowerment and religious and political pluralism —
might be sustainable if you are Iran or Saudi Arabia, and you have huge
reserves of oil and gas to buy off all the contradictions between your
ideology and economic growth. But if you are Egypt and basically your
only natural resource is your people — men and women — you need to be as
open to the world and modernity as possible to unleash all of their
potential for growth.
On top of that, Friedman uses that “needs to understand” phrase, so
beloved by editorialists but totally absurd when dealing with dictators.
Well, what if they don’t understand, Mr. Friedman?
Friedman's latest does not acknowledge that he had been wrong for the
past two years about Egypt. In fact the tone of his article is more a
message to the Muslim Brotherhood, "Hey, guys, you're getting this
revolution thing wrong." Worse, his final paragraph reads:
It would not be healthy for us to re-create with the Muslim Brotherhood
the bargain we had with Mubarak. That is, just be nice to Israel and
nasty to the jihadists and you can do whatever you want to your own
people out back. It also won’t be possible. The Egyptian people
tolerated that under Mubarak for years. But now they are mobilized, and
they have lost their fear. Both we and Morsi need to understand that
this old bargain is not sustainable any longer.
To Friedman, the problem isn't even really with the Muslim Brotherhood
but with the United States. The United States was so concerned about
Israel it allowed Mubarak to oppress his own people for thirty years.
Israel isn't even a factor here. But Friedman brings it in because it
sounds good to him. In Friedman's world everyone is wrong but him.
That works for him. He has a great high profile job and lots of people
pay good money to hear him speak. However since he has no capacity for
self-criticism, it's unlikely that you'll learn anything of value from
him except for a few meaningless pithy phrases.
If you want to learn something, read Barry Rubin. Unfortunately too many
of our policy makers are drawn in by Thomas Friedman's clever sounding
but ultimately meaningless tropes.
2) The Friedman deficit
"What ails the Arab world is a deficit of freedom, a deficit of modern education and a deficit of women’s empowerment." Thomas Friedman, A Festival of Lies, March 24, 2012
Ditto in Syria and Libya. In their essay, the study’s co-editors,
Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell, note that from 2006 to 2011, up to
60 percent of Syria’s land experienced the worst drought ever recorded
there — at a time when Syria’s population was exploding and its corrupt
and inefficient regime was proving incapable of managing the stress.
In 2009, they noted, the U.N. and other international agencies reported
that more than 800,000 Syrians lost their entire livelihoods as a result
of the great drought, which led to “a massive exodus of farmers,
herders, and agriculturally dependent rural families from the Syrian
countryside to the cities,” fueling unrest. The future does not look
much brighter. “On a scale of wetness conditions,” Femia and Werrell
note, “ ‘where a reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought,’ a
2010 report by the National Center for Atmospheric Research shows that
Syria and its neighbors face projected readings of -8 to -15 as a result
of climatic changes in the next 25 years.” Similar trends, they note,
are true for Libya, whose “primary source of water is a finite cache of
fossilized groundwater, which already has been severely stressed while
coastal aquifers have been progressively invaded by seawater.”
Friedman sees the water crisis as a major problem going forward.
As Sarah Johnstone and Jeffrey Mazo of the International Institute for
Strategic Studies conclude in their essay, “fledgling democracies with
weak institutions might find it even harder to deal with the root
problems than the regimes they replace, and they may be more vulnerable
to further unrest as a result.” Yikes.
Friedman is great at quoting other experts. However, there's one story he missed, How Israel beat the drought:
Kushnir’s answers: Yes, Israelis must still be wise with their water
use. Yes, emphatically, this is a desert region, desperately short of
natural water. And yes, we have indeed been worried for years about the
possibility of water shortages provoking conflict.
But for Israel, for the foreseeable future, Kushnir says, the water
crisis is over. And not because this happens to have been one of the
wettest winters in years. Rather, he says, an insistent refusal to let
the country be constrained by insufficient natural water sources — a
refusal that dates back to David Ben-Gurion’s decision to build the
National Water Carrier in the 1950s, the most significant infrastructure
investment of Israel’s early years — led Israel first into large-scale
water recycling, and over the past decade into major desalination
projects. The result, as of early 2013, is that the Water Authority
feels it can say with confidence that Israel has beaten the drought.
It's true that Israel's area is much smaller than any of the countries,
so maybe solutions that work for Israel won't work for Syria, Libya or
Egypt. On the other hand Israel has the technology and know-how to
alleviate the effects of drought. Maybe Friedman didn't see the article
about Israel's success. But is it conceivable that he would have written
something like:
Ironically the struggling governments of the Middle East could benefit
by putting aside their irrational hatred of Israel and turning to the
Jewish state to learn about desalinization and water management.
Of course not.
In 2002, Friedman's most famous column was his "speech in the drawer" column
in which he announced that (then) Crown Prince Abdullah would propose
normalization with Israel at the upcoming Arab summit if Israel would
agree to end the occupation on the terms dictated by the Arab League.
What was astounding about the column is how overwhelmed Friedman was by
the proposal. Abudllah's offer was very specific about its demands on
Israel and very nebulous about what was promised to Israel in exchange.
There was no unequivocal statement to the effect of "In return for
complying with our conditions, the Arab League promises to treat Israel
as it does any other nation." Rather there were questions as to the
degree of normalization promised.
What mattered to Friedman, was not how poorly Mubarak, Assad or Qaddafi
were persecuting their own people at that time, but whether they were
willing to make the Palestinian cause their first priority. It didn't
make a difference that Israel was now fighting a terror war directed by
Arafat, Friedman promoted this proposal, which put pressure on Israel,
rather than suggesting any alternative that would have pressured the
Palestinians to stop their violence.
By promoting the Abdullah proposal, Friedman was normalizing the Arab
rejection of Israel. He effectively endorsed the idea that Arab concern
for the Palestinians was sufficient reason for them to treat Israel as a
pariah. Concern for Arabs in Egypt, Syria, Libya or Saudi Arabia was
absent from his writing back then.
Over the years Friedman would sometimes refer to the deficits of the
Arab world. To be sure he'd recommend some form of Westernization as a
cure for these deficits. Never, though, did Friedman suggest that
accepting Israel and eschewing antisemitism would be a necessary step
for these countries to take.
So when Thomas Friedman wrote about droughts in the Arab world it is
inconceivable that he'd have suggested that Egypt or Libya turn to
Israel for help. (Right now even water technology won't help Syria.) To
Friedman Israel is an inconvenience when it comes to the Middle East,
not a benefit.
Barry Rubin, one of the most prolific pro-Israel writers around, is having surgery today for lung cancer (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad).
i’m about to undergo an operation to attempt to drain the fluid from my lungs by inserting a tube. this will take 3-5 days and i will be in hospital. it is possible i will not be able to communicate during this time. they will then try to seal the lungs which if it succeeds will help me. we will then begin chemo and other therapies. the operation is said not be dangerous. please expect no correspondence or articles from me during this period. it is hoped that by next week i will be pretty normal and undergoing care. i have wonderful doctors. i hope and believe we will be together again in future. with all my gratitude for your being good readers and interested in my thoughts. i hope i have been helpful to you. please keep up the fight for what’s good and decent and right even when it costs us in personal and professional terms.
In case you're wondering, Barry has never been a smoker.
Barry Rubin censored by an English-speaking European government
Barry Rubin writes that an article he wrote about Egypt's Islamist takeover has been banned as 'hate speech' by a certain English-speaking European country.
What this means is that if you work for any institution that is part of this government–including the Foreign or Defense ministries–you cannot read this PJ Media column on your computer that’s part of such a server. The message reads: Access denied — reason given : hate speech.
My reader asks sarcastically if complaining about this action would constitute a “thought crime” on his part.
Update: A reliable reader reports the same thing happened on a business computer in the United States where the sheriff is apparently something called DansGuardian.
This is the first time ever that one of my articles has been so flagged. But it brings out an important point: A computer program that picks out “key words” can accuse you of a crime and block your free speech. If I had to guess at the phrase it would be my reference (that’s a guess) to “Muslim riots” in France several years ago. But they were riots by Muslims and that is not only factually correct but necessary for making an important point.
Apparently, this system has done the same thing to articles by other people before though I don’t know the details.
So there are two problems here:
–Free speech is now conditional on someone’s judgment of your viewpoint.
–That judge isn’t even a human being but a computer program that makes arbitrary selections out of context. Would the phrases “Christian riot,” “Hindu riot,” “Jewish riot,” “Caucasian riot,” etc., trigger an accusation of hate speech? Who decides? Where is this information available to the public? Perhaps we might be told what we are and aren’t allowed to say now so we can save time by censoring ourselves.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, December 18.
1) Your daily dose of irony
Where do the following paragraphs appear?
Can anyone argue with the assertion that, for neocons, Obama is always wrong and Bibi is always right? Not only that, they denounce those who dare criticise Netanyahu over anything while never ever letting up on Obama. How can it be that the prime minister is always right but the president is always wrong? But I need to offer a clarification. By the term "Israel firster", I do not mean that right-wingers and neocons who advance bellicose Middle East policies are putting the interests of Israel first. Far from it. They are putting the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu and his hardliners first. After all, if they were putting Israel first, they would not be promoting policies (such as war with Iran or the perpetuation of the occupation) that could very easily lead to Israel's destruction or, at least, to the loss of its Jewish majority. The people I call "Israel firsters" are, in fact, Netanyahu firsters.
Worse, is the fact that LA's Jewish Journal reproduces Rosenberg's columns too. The latest there, is called The “pro-Israel” right loses it, and in it Rosenberg praises Thomas Friedman for being pro-Israel! How anyone who willingly has his columns republished on an Islamist website can accuse others of losing it is extremely ironic; not that Rosenberg possesses the self-awareness to recognize that. But I wanted to focus on part of the defense of Friedman:
The Friedman quote that absolutely drove the pro-Likud right crazy was directed at Binyamin Netanyahu:
I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
For this, Commentary called Friedman a practitioner of the “new anti-Semitism,” with virtually all of the usual suspects following suit. Tom Friedman an anti-Semite! Imagine.
I'm sure his readers in Qatar and the Gulf will love the "Israel Lobby" line. Friedman and Rosenberg just confirmed their darkest fear! (Does Al Jazeera translate these article into Arabic?)
Unfortunately, there is not enough debate over what it means to be “pro-Israel” and little frank discussion of the fundamental, even existential, choice facing Israel and the United States at a strategic fork in the road. Down one path, Israel maintains the status quo. Settlements beyond the Green Line continue to expand, and doubts regarding the existence of a true partner for peace are used to justify continued procrastination in taking meaningful steps toward a two-state solution. All too quickly on this path it will become clear that there no longer is a Green Line. Rather, there will be one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean left to grapple with how to remain a democratic, Jewish nation when a majority of the people living there are not Jewish.
I’m not in the least bit joking and honestly don’t think I’ve exaggerated the above points covering what the American and European left (including its Jewish components) thinks should be the proper Israeli policy. Nevertheless, I don’t see the Kadima or Labor parties adopting such a program. I think it would be most amusing to go down to the corner of, for example, King George and Dizengoff streets to quiz random Israeli pedestrians about what they think of this plan. As always, since the mainstream Western media generally does not allow a real response to the ridiculousness of the program it advocates for Israel you won’t be reading any of the points made above in such places. People will just be left to believe that the current government is just unreasonably reactionary; that most Israelis support Obama (or if they don’t they deserve what they get); and if Israel just let the American far left choose its government than everything would be just fine. In fact, every public opinion poll in Israel backs up my points. Indeed, if anyone left-wing blogs or the mass media does remark on this article it will only be to brand it “right-wing.” Not at all. It's just right.
Recently one of my state legislators visited Israel. While I suspect that he generally is in agreement with J-Street, I don't believe he has a formal affiliation with the group.
One of the things impressed upon us by many of the leaders and thinkers we’ve met with these past four days: the unwillingness of politcal figures on both sides to come to the “damn table,” as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said. As an Israeli academic put it at the end of the day, “You can’t prematurely create a Palestinian state under the wrong conditions.” Israel must demonstrate the merits of that argument to the Jewish Diaspora and the rest of the world.
He, of course, is misinformed. And that won't stop him from presenting himself as pro-Israel in 2014, when he's up for re-election. (He presents himself as pro-Israel to the roughly 30% of his constituents who are Jewish - mostly Orthodox.)
If he were pro-Israel, he would be able to demonstrate those arguments. One need not be a scholar; this isn't ancient history.
In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords. In his exchange of letters with Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat committed himself to rejecting terrorism and devoting himself to negotiations for peace. Over the next several years Israel withdrew from territory, freeing more than 90% of the Palestinians from Israel rule. Even "right wing" Prime Minister withdrew Israeli forces from most of the Jewish holy city of Hebron. Still President Clinton viewed Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace and worked to undermine him politically.
After Netanyahu was defeated in 1999 and succeeded by Ehud Barak, efforts were made to resolve final status issues. In July 2000, Arafat rejected an unprecedented offer from Barak to settle all the issues at Camp David Maryland. Two months later Arafat launched the "Aqsa Intifada," using the pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.
In response Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield to destroy the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built in Judea and Samaria. Despite Israel's success in defeating the major terror groups it faced there, hundreds of Israelis were killed during this terror war.
Earlier in 2000, Israel completely withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, which, according to the conventional wisdom provided Hezbollah with its raison d'etre. But Hezbollah quickly violated the international border, kidnapping and killing three Israeli soldiers - a violation that was covered up by the UN. Hezbollah used the next six years to build up its capacity to strike Israel (and launched occasional attacks against Israel throughout.) When the threat became too great, Israel was forced to fight to destroy the infrastructure that had been built over the previous six years. With the Israeli capture of the Karine A, Arafat was discredited. International pressure forced his second in command, Mahmoud Abbas into the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. While he hasn't been as involved in terror to the same degree as Arafat, Abbas has proven himself to be just as corrupt. Later Salam Fayyad became the Prime Minister of the government, however this "moderate" face has no real constituency in the Fatah Central committee, which is still ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Furthermore Abbas refused a peace offer from Ehud Olmert in 2008 - one even more extensive that Barak's eight years earlier - claiming that (East) Jerusalem was non-negotiable.
In addition to the withdrawals from much of Judea and Samaria (or, if you prefer, the West Bank) and from southern Lebanon, in 2005 Israel withdrew all soldiers and civilians from Gaza. Hamas was the beneficiary of this withdrawal and was able to win legislative elections in 2006 and then a brutal power struggle with Fatah a year later, consolidating its hold on Gaza. In late 2008 after thousands of rockets were fired at southern Israel, Israel fought back with Operation Cast Lead to destroy Hamas's infrastructure.
This is Israel's case in six paragraphs. Over the past 18 years Israel has undertaken significant risks and made substantial material concessions for peace. Its efforts have been met with indifference at best, or even terror. Despite these risks and concessions, Israel is still portrayed as fundamentally responsible for the absence of peace. Even Israel's efforts to protect itself against outrageous attacks of terror are met with criticism not sympathy.
If MJ Rosenberg, or Jeremy Ben Ami or my legislator were truly pro-Israel they'd acknowledge all this. Instead their insistence that Israel is fundamentally responsible for the lack of peace or even (as my legislator seemingly argues) equally responsible, only excuses the intransigence of the Palestinians.
4) Clarification
I wrote on Friday, that PM Netanyahu's adviser, Ron Dermer, was incorrect about when Judge Goldstone's op-ed had appeared in the New York Times. Here's the full text:
Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, “positive” and “negative,” with “negative” meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were “negative.” The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid.
I mis-read the initial excerpted report, and thought that Dermer had written that the op-ed appeared in September.
Barry Rubin rips US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta some new body parts.
Panetta has now bashed Israel based on a premise. Here it is:
“I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.” Nevertheless, Israel needs to take risks and particularly, “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”
First, there is a peculiar phrase that I have not seen used even once to describe the Middle East events of 2011. How did that phrase get into Panetta’s vocabulary? Obviously, from a briefing and I don’t believe it came from anyone at the Defense Department. That phrase is “Arab awakening” instead of “Arab Spring.”
Every Middle East historian—well, every Middle East historian who knows something about the Middle East—knows that The Arab Awakening was the famous book written by George Antonius (subsidized by a U.S foundation to do so, by the way) advocating Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism in 1938. I can’t prove it but it gives me an idea of the views of whoever wrote those talking points.
This phrase also gives Panetta’s statement a strangely contradictory tone. If The Arab Awakening began a half-century pan-Arab struggle against Israel’s creation or existence might this not give us a hint of what the new “Arab Awakening” is going to do? Oh, and 1938 marks the year when Great Britain desperately tried to sell out the Jews in order to gain Arab support (for the coming war with Germany and Italy). Within two years of Antonius’s book the form the Arab Awakening took was an alliance with Nazi Germany. One of the main allies of Berlin was the Muslim Brotherhood, now coming into power in Tunisia and Egypt.
Interesting parallels.
But there are three other major questions raised in Panetta’s silly statement.
First, does the current “Arab Awakening” imperil Israel? Yes, of course it does.
...
Second, and more interestingly, why is the above true?
The answer is as follows:
–Democracy in theory is admirable but when you have masses imbued with very radical views, strong Islamist movements, and weak moderate ones, the election winners will be extremely radical Islamists. By winning massive victories, facing a weak (even sympathetic) United States, and seeing even mor extreme forces becoming so popular (the Salafists in Egypt) the Islamists are emboldened to be even more radical in their behavior. Who’s going to stop them?
–We are thus not facing a springtime of democracy but a springtime of extremism.
–Not only is the United States not opposing this development it is supporting it. In other words, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Third, why are there no negotiations? As the history of the issue since January 2009 shows, it is the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Israel. If Panetta and the Obama Administration were either wise or honest they would acknowledge this fact. Instead, they blame Israel. Once again, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Consequently, Panetta’s statement that Israel has a responsibility to build regional support for Israeli and United States’ security objectives is nonsense.
Barry Rubin flags a Washington Post interview with Jordan's King Abdullah and says that it's bad news for the United States and for the West generally.
Here’s how King Abdallah responded to Weymouth’s question, “Do you and other leaders in this area believe you cannot rely on the U.S.?"
He replied:
"I think everybody is wary of dealing with the West....Looking at how quickly people turned their backs on [Egyptian President Husni] Mubarak, I would say that most people are going to try and go their own way. I think there is going to be less coordination with the West and therefore a chance of more misunderstandings."
This is devastating. I'm not shocked that the king thinks that way but I am shocked that he says so openly. In other words he isn't afraid of Obama's being angry and thinks he has nothing to lose because things aren't going to be better. That's how far the situation has deteriorated.
Imagine that instead of going to Jordan (which is also an Arab country in addition to being a pro-American, moderate one) for advice on building the opposition leadership in neighboring Syria, the Obama Administration went to the non-Arab, Islamist Turkish regime!
Jordan is now turning to Saudi Arabia, another country that is no longer relying on Obama, to be its protector and source for financial aid.
Jordan has been the most long-term, consistent ally of the United States in the Arab world, continuously for more than 40 years. Yet the king cannot trust those in the White House any more. They dumped Mubarak, they might dump him.
Assuming that Obama is gone in 2013, it will take years to undo the damage that he has done to the Unites States' allies. And if God forbid he is reelected....
Here's a video of an address given by Professor Barry Rubin at an Amsterdam synagogue on Monday night. I think you'll find it interesting. He's talking about Islamists.
Larry’s dismissal is made all the more obscene by virtue of the light it sheds on the egregious double-standard that once-professional publication now employs in regard to conservative versus liberal opinion; I say that as someone who fondly remembers the fairly conservative op-ed editor of my own time at the Post soliciting op-ed pieces he openly disagreed with. Larry worries his post might end up on some Hamas website. This is yet to occur, and even if it does take place, it’s doubtful it would influence the decision of any young Palestinian whether to become a terrorist or not. By contrast, the writings of Jerusalem Post deputy-editor Caroline Glick were cited in the manic manifesto of Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik in justification of the bloodbath he executed earlier this summer; unlike Derfner, Glick has yet to be shown the door.
Moreover, right after the Norway carnage the Jerusalem Post published an outlandish editorial suggesting the calculated, murderous rampage of a self-confessed xenophobe was an opportunity for Norway to revisit its immigration policy. The editorial was so beyond the pale the Post only put it up on the website with a disclaimer, and sparked such an outrage in Norway the newspaper had to spend another editorial on an apology; to my knowledge, all of those responsible for this serialised farce kept their jobs. Not so for Derfner.
Now, I’m not suggesting Glick and the author of that editorial (assuming they’re not the same person) should be fired for their opinions. There are many other reasons not to retain Glick’s services. Serious complaints of her conservative column’s ultra-liberal attitude to facts should be a warning sign for any reader; her suggestions regarding the possibility of an alliance between Israel and the Vatican, instead of fickle, fickle USA, are enough to give anybody pause; and as far as embarrassing appearances outside the Jpost go, her responsibility for a “satirical” clip showing a blackface minstrel Barack Obama singing to Israel’s destruction is hard to forget.
Yet Glick’s right to express even the strangest and most obsolete of opinion from the pages of what publication would have her remains in place and should not be infringed upon. Opinion is up there to be read, to be disagreed with and to be criticised; this is the fundamental principle of op-ed pages. The Jerusalem Post has obviously sunk so low and became wedded to Glenn-Beck-type readership so tightly it now applies this principle to conservative opinion only. Pity. It used to be a newspaper once.
Hello? It was a business decision! By Derfner's own admission, the Post had HUNDREDS of subscription cancellations because of what Derfner wrote. A newspaper is a commercial enterprise (unlike blogs which are written by true believers who toil in anonymity for free). Is the Post supposed to lose money to give Derfner a platform to spew his noxious venom at Israelis?
Caroline Glick is probably the most popular columnist in Israel and is certainly the most popular Israeli columnist among Israelis abroad. Given that the writer - Dimi Reider - acknowledges Glick's right to write whatever she pleases, what is the point of implying that she should be fired because Derfner was?
Reider may not like it, but the fact is that English-speaking olim are far more conservative than are Israelis or diaspora Jews. Unlike Haaretz, the JPost caters (or at least did until a couple of weeks ago) to that crowd.
Finally, Glick did not suggest that Norway revisit its immigration policy. Neither did Barry Rubin, who has also been subject to constant attack on the Post's editorial pages by representatives of the Norwegian government. Rather, Glick and Rubin suggested that Norway ought to do some introspection as to whether their support for 'Palestinian' terrorists was giving succor to those who would terrorize Norwegians. Norway still has not (or doesn't want to) get that point.
And for those wondering why Reider didn't mention Barry Rubin along with Glick, go here.
A group of people with a terrible record as developers who didn’t develop, businessmen who didn’t pay their bills, and slumlords put together a very badly designed project that would never otherwise have gotten zoning and other permits. In other words, the true story is how city officials gave special privileges and the media gave sweetheart coverage because people were Muslims building a mosque, not that there was discrimination against Muslims who wanted to build a mosque. Remember, in the end the mosque project got everything its advocates wanted and yet it still wasn’t built.
It is the story of how the corrupt can play a system built around special privileges for special categories of people, in which fear of being labelled some variety of “racist” overrides the proper enforcement of the law.
Someone should write the detailed story of the whole affair from that standpoint.
Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews Barry Rubin about the Arab Spring (updated here):
KJL: How would you rate U.S. leadership on all of this?
RUBIN: Terrible! For a number of reasons: mishandling Egypt; empowering the Muslim Brotherhood; failing to support democratic oppositions in Turkey and Lebanon, and waiting too long to call for the downfall of the Syrian government; failing to consult with moderate Arab allies and totally dissing Saudi Arabia; not giving Israel strong support at a time when its security situation is worsening; ignoring the increasing Islamization and repression in Turkey; actually acting to help the survival of Hamas in the Gaza Strip by forcing reduced sanctions and supplying funds indirectly; and being far too slow and weak to respond to the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral independence bid.
It is really amazing how badly they’ve done. And the above paragraph is not at all a partisan critique. Each of these factors is very obvious and visible even if they aren’t being covered in the main media very much. It can be summed up as failing to recognize the revolutionary Islamist threat; failing to support allies; being too soft on enemies; and not showing American leadership.
Obviously, jobs and the economy will be the number-one issue in the 2012 elections. But if crises in the Middle East blow up — as I think they will — and make Obama’s foreign policy look like a disaster, might that be the number-two issue?
I guess Barry's not a big fan of 'leading from behind.'
Foreign policy ought to be an issue in 2012. The way in which Obama has squandered US advantages and disparaged American exceptionalism ought to be thrown at him again and again. Here's hoping the Republican candidate - whoever that might be - takes advantage of it.
Glenn Beck has it right on the Middle East says...
Glenn Beck has got it right on the Middle East says... Barry Rubin.
Certainly, Beck makes silly mistakes on factual matters and details. Yet what’s important is that he comprehends the big picture. I don’t say this based on a superficial view or on his support for Israel. As part of the GLORIA Center’s project on understanding current American politics and debates I have monitored virtually every television and radio show Beck has done over the last two years. When people voice absurd and slanderous stereotypes about Beck, it turns out they haven’t actually listened to what he’s been saying.
Why has Beck gotten things right that so many others have missed or distorted? There are five key reasons: Common sense; courage; knowing the difference between right and wrong, willingness to learn, and readiness to admit when one has been wrong. These are virtues often lacking among those with more elegant reputations and impressive diplomas.
What has he gotten right?
Quite a lot of things. Read the whole thing. I especially want to call your attention to this one:
9. We must reevaluate friends and enemies in this new era of revolutionary Islamism and post-Marxist leftism.
In the past, Jews often saw conservatives and religious Christians as threats for good reasons. But we’re no longer in the nineteenth or even twentieth centuries. Conservatives and Christians aren’t drooling to convert, kill, or use Jews to bring on the apocalypse. That’s out-dated. While doing everything possible to work with liberals and social democrats, we must understand—whatever our personal political views—that Israel and the Jewish people have a new set of allies.
Why have these groups changed their views on Jews? With religion imperiled in the West, they see Jews as fellow believers rather than—as in past antisemitism—corrosive atheists and Jesus-killers. They see Israel as an embodiment of the nation-state and admire its ability to defend itself, rather than considering Jews to be cosmopolitan subversives and cowardly pacifists. Rather than view Jews as imperiling Western civilization, they view Israel as facing the same enemies they believe to be doing so today.
An important issue—in fact, the key test—was how conservatives would deal with the presence of so many Jews among their opponents. Historically, that situation was a prime factor in an antisemitic narrative on the right. The solution has been to perceive leftist Jews as traitors to their own Jewish people rather than to consider Jews as a whole to be the villain. Whether or not you agree with that assessment isn’t important in this context. What’s important is that this solves the political and religious right’s past inclination toward antisemitism.
The Norwegian government and media establishment is not ready to have an honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there. Not a single Norwegian reporter or editor made any attempt to contact me since the beginning of this issue to hear my side or to ask my views.
How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing? The blog Israel Matzav sums up my position very well: “Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government’s support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?” And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate – as its ambassador to Israel portrayed his country’s view – that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state 11 years ago), but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian Left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology – right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic – but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.
We are left, mouths agape, wondering whether an editorial like the one above would have been written a couple of months ago when David Horowitz was the JPost's editor-in-chief. I suspect not.
The editorial squarely condemned the attack, saying that “as Israelis, a people that is sadly all too familiar with the horrors of indiscriminate, murderous terrorism, our hearts go out with empathy to the Norwegian people.”
However, it also, inappropriately, raised issues that were not directly pertinent, such as the dangers of multiculturalism, European immigration policies and even the Oslo peace process.
“Your editorial, while insistently condemning the violence in Norway, shockingly and shamelessly attempts to offer justification for his extremist violent act of terror,” wrote Esam Omeish in one of many letters to the editor, several of which were published in the paper.
Steve Linde, the editor-in-chief, immediately posted the following statement on our website, JPost.com: “As a newspaper, The Jerusalem Post strongly denounces all acts of violence against innocent civilians. This editorial is not aimed at deflecting attention from the horrific massacre perpetuated in Norway, nor the need to take greater precautions against extremists from all sides.”
I did not read that JPost editorial as justifying the Norwegian terror attacks. But one would not be human if one did not wonder what might have caused a 'normal Norwegian boy' to become a mass murderer of his own people. While it might more appropriately have been done by Norwegians themselves and not in a JPost editorial, introspection after such a tragedy is a good thing and not an attempt to justify the act.
As Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick suggested in her column last Friday, the fact that Breivik’s warped mind cited a group of conservative thinkers including herself as having influenced his thinking in no way reflects on them.
“As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable,” she wrote. “Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.”
In today’s paper, we are publishing an opinion piece by Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, in which he thanks Israeli leaders “for their kind and comforting words” but expresses dismay over comments made by two Jerusalem Post columnists.
At the same time, he titles his column, “A time to heal.”
We echo his wish, and hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused by our editorial and columnists at this sensitive time.
Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister appeals for 'healing'... by attacking Rubin and Glick
In a comment in Friday's JPost, Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, has appealed for 'healing' in the aftermath of Norway's terror attacks two weeks ago. But he has done so with a vicious attack on Barry Rubin (mostly) and Caroline Glick.
Many Norwegians, however, have been astonished by assertions recently made in The Jerusalem Post by two of its regular columnists, Barry Rubin and Caroline Glick.
For example, Barry Rubin wrote on Monday that “...the youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially... a pro-terrorist program.”
According to Rubin, the camp was “justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israel” by advocating an end to the blockade of Gaza and recognition of a Palestinian state.
Barry sounds exactly right to me. Of course, Barth Eide omits the fact that Fatah terrorists have participated in the Utoya camp for the last fifteen years. But leaving that aside, how else does one characterize the advocacy at Utoya camp of employing BDS against Israel in a bid to 'convince' it to remove its lawful blockade of an area from which thousands of rockets have been fired at it over the last ten years? Is that not supporting free access (and free access to weapons) for terrorists?
Rubin even implicitly blamed Norway’s Middle East policy for the attacks in Norway. He wrote, “If terrorist murders by Hamas and Islamists did not stop well-intentioned future leaders of Norway from considering them heroic underdogs, an evil local man could think his act of terrorism would gain sympathy and change Europe’s politics.”
This was, Rubin claimed, an example of the “Oslo Syndrome” whereby rewarding terrorists with political gains promotes more terrorism.
In other words, Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a 'normal Norwegian boy' ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?
Rubin and Glick have also made much of the supposed statements by Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje to Ma’ariv, according to which he distinguished between the motivation behind terrorism in Israel and in Norway. Glick and Rubin are not alone in doing so. Several other Israeli media have latched on to this as well.
On this point, of course, it was not Glick or Rubin who was at fault. The ambassador was incorrectly quoted by Ma’ariv. He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
Funny that he hasn't quoted Glick yet. But let's look at what the Norwegian ambassador to Israel actually said:
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
Whether the Maariv reporter (and I hope the reporter will come forward with a recording of the interview) misquoted Norwegian ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje, remains to be seen. But if the ambassador was misquoted, isn't it odd that it has taken from Tuesday, July 26 (the date of the interview) to Friday August 5 for someone to claim that he was misquoted? If he was misquoted, why was this allowed to stew for ten days? Maybe because it took the Norwegian Foreign Ministry ten days to think of that excuse?
But Barth Eide's gloss shows that he completely does not get what offended Israelis about Sevje's statements. Let's look at Barth Eide's explanation again.
He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
In other words, what Sevje really meant is that Norwegians will continue to sympathize with 'Palestinian' terrorism despite the fact that they have now experienced terrorism themselves up close and personal. Are we Israelis supposed to take solace in the fact that this is what Sevje really meant and not that Breivik's motivation differed from Hamas' motivation? Really?
What Barth Eide ought to do is to say that Norway will conduct some self-examination and consider how its own actions might have contributed to the perception of a 'normal Norwegian boy' that terrorism was an okay way to deal with those with whom one disagrees. That introspection ought to start with an examination of Norway's policies of support for Hamas and the 'Palestinian Authority.'
But of course, none of that will happen. Norwegians are holier than we are and they never make mistakes. Just ask any representative of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store has attacked Professor Barry Rubin for allegedly labeling as 'pro-terrorist' the Utoya youth camp, at which 76 young people were murdered by a normal Norwegian boy. I'll come to Barry's response in a minute, but first let's look at what Store said (via Daily Kos, which takes the opportunity to pile on and bash Barry).
Rubin's claims are outrageous, and I'm not going to comment on them in any length. I will just say that the Labour Party and the AUF do not support terrorism in any way. They are not extremists.
You all know better than that. The Labour Party and the AUF do not support terrorism in any way... unless it's 'Palestinian' terrorism directed at Israeli Jews.
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
If that's not supporting terrorism, I don't know what is.
1. Am I justifying the murders and saying they were well-deserved? Of course not.
I don't in any way believe such a thing. These were as I've said from the beginning terrible acts of terrorism. In the article you will see my explicit argument that nobody should be a victim of terrorism even if they support politically a group committing terrorism. Since my argument is that NO terrorism--defined as the deliberate murder of civilians as part of a conscious political strategy--is acceptable, why would I justify the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed, non-violent people in Norway?
To justify it I would have to be saying that I supported the murder of young people because I disagree with their political views or those of their elders. That would be insane though, of course, that is precisely what actual terrorists do. And many "respectable" people wrote in various ways that the September 11 attacks on America were "well-deserved." That was precisely the kind of thing I had in mind as something dangerous and to be condemned when writing the article.
2. In short, since the entire purpose of the article is to urge a universal condemnation of terrorism and to ensure that it doesn't bear political profit, I had no intention of endorsing terrorism in this case! The point of the article can be simply stated as follows: It is a dangerous thing to empower or reward terrorism anywhere because that makes terrorism seem a successful strategy and thus encourages more terrorism. If you argue politically that terrorists are justified in the Middle East or, to put it a different way, that they aren't terrorists at all, you are making terrorism more likely to happen. It is tragic--not justifiable or deserved but horrible--that such people or such a country then becomes the target of terrorism.
...
4. If Hamas uses a strategy of terrorism and then gains Western sympathy and help, then Hamas and other groups will conclude that terrorism works. Thus, more terrorism will take place and more innocent victims murdered. It is not true to say that I claimed any group in Norway applauded terrorism against Israelis. They either did not define it as terrorism, did not take it into account as a factor to be considered, or supported groups despite the fact that they used massive terrorism. Indeed, Norway's ambassador himself said that people in his country viewed terrorism as only a response to occupation while the main newspaper attacking me repeatedly denied--and denies--that Hamas is a terrorist group.
5. I never said and don't believe that the camp in Norway was a terrorist training camp. A terrorist training camp is a place where people are trained to use guns, explosives, and various methods to stage military attacks and then escape afterward. What went on in the camp in Norway was purely conversational, theoretical, and political. That's obvious.
...
9. My goal is to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of terrorism and to reduce the number of victims. This article was written in that spirit--to save lives in future. It is based on 35 years of work on this issue and following it on a daily basis. When those who attack me--overwhelmingly one faction within Norway--insist that Hamas is not a terrorist group and thus distinguish between "justified" terrorism and "non-justified" terrorism they are doing what I'm being accused of doing. By the way, that is precisely the same way that Norway's ambassador to Israel characterized the view of people in that country (as I quote in my article).
Israel's public diplomacy challenges: Your chance to volunteer
I just got this by email.
Israel's Public Diplomacy efforts during these critical months ahead need YOUR help! A think tank that works closely with many Jewish diaspora movements, the Israeli government, and other civil society groups is coordinating international responses to issues like the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state in September, and the upcoming Flotilla II (should it set sail.)
A situation room has been set up at the organization's headquarters in Herzliya to host volunteers. This will be an around the clock effort during times of national emergency.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of these efforts we need volunteers with skills that suit the following positions/fields:
Social Media Experts (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, ) Communication Professionals (media relations, internet, radio, television and print) Public Policy and International Relations Professionals Individuals who are fluent and are willing to translate in: Italian, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Turkish, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, or Chinese. Computer Engineers (iOS and Android developers) Web Designers Graphic Designers Video Production (editors, cameramen, and technicians) ...and anyone else who has an interest in protecting Israel from all forms of delegitimization present in the world today!
Please contact me on Facebook, Email: gregg.roman@gmail.com or by Phone: 054-678-5250 for more information.
Shabbat Shalom! Gregg Roman
And who is Gregg Roman?
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, directed by Barry Rubin, is a research center located at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya (IDC). IDC is Israel's first private institution of higher learning.
Director of Development Gregg previously served as advisor to Members of the Knesset and several government ministries. He is also the former Research Director of the Inter-University Center for Legal Studies at the International Law Institute in Washington DC. Gregg has a wealth of experience and extensive background in development and donor relations from being a consultant to various NGOs, political parties, and research bodies. He studied at the American University and the Interdisciplinary Center.
http://www.gloria-center.org/about.html
So any of you who volunteer should please link me (Barry knows me). Heh.
Oh my... Gates calls on Syrian army to stand aside and let Assad be overthrown
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called on the Syrian army to stand aside and let Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be overthrown.
Drawing a parallel between the unrest in Syria and the protests that unseated Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s former president, Mr Gates said: “I’ve just come from Egypt, where the Egyptian army stood on the sidelines and allowed people to demonstrate and in fact empowered a revolution. The Syrians might take a lesson from that.”
His comments came as thousands of people marched on Thursday in Deraa, southern Syria, where at least 44 people are now thought to have been killed in a week of protests, and as Mr Assad announced salary increases and promised greater freedom.
“I would say that what the Syrian government is confronting is in fact the same challenge that faces so many governments across the region, and that is the unmet political and economic grievances of their people,” Reuters quoted Mr Gates as saying during a trip to Israel.
The Obama administration has been careful to avoid the language of regime change when dealing with the Middle East and it was not clear if the White House shared Mr Gates’s sentiments.
Barack Obama, US president, has argued that the two key principles the US is backing are respect of universal rights and non-violence in dealing with protesters.
With the exception of the case of Col Gaddafi, the US has not explicitly called for any of the Arab world’s leaders to leave office. The administration insists it is popular will, rather than the US’s opinion, that should determine the fate of the Arab world’s leaders, while maintaining alliances with strategically important countries.
Was he reflecting White House orders on this point? Possible but I doubt it. Let’s see if the president says anything about Syria. The White House did strongly condemn the Syrian government’s “brutal repression of demonstrations.” But that’s the kind of language routinely applied by it to lots of countries. Will anything about the U.S. conciliatory effort toward Damascus change? Senator John Kerry, chief appeaser of the Bashar al-Asad dictatorship, will no doubt go on doing so.
Professor Rubin also argues that the Syrian army is most unlikely to pick up on Gates' suggestion.
As for Syria, can anyone tell us why the Syrian army will stand by the regime? Okay, I’ll do it. Syria is run by the Alawite minority who simply aren’t real Muslims but pretend to be Shia when that suits them. The Alawites know that a revolution would almost certainly produce an Islamist takeover and certainly a Sunni Muslim one. And such a regime would line a lot of the Alawites up against a wall and…bang, bang, bang.
That’s a good incentive for shooting down unarmed demonstrators. Kill or be killed.
I sure hope they have a way to get US diplomats and dependents out of the newly revamped Damascus embassy quickly if necessary. Remember Tehran?
Niall Ferguson's view that the Obama administration reacted badly to the crisis in Egypt seems to be widespread, at least in what I've been reading online. But the problem goes beyond what happened in the last month.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Egypt Group (which I discussed here) warned of trouble ahead in Egypt more than a year ago. According to another source, the administration may even have known two years ago.
Early last year, a group of U.S.-based human-rights activists, neoconservative policy makers and Mideast experts told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that what passed for calm in Egypt was an illusion.
"If the opportunity to reform is missed, prospects for stability and prosperity in Egypt will be in doubt," read their April 2010 letter.
The correspondence was part of a string of warnings passed to the Obama administration arguing that Egypt, heading toward crisis, required a vigorous U.S. response. Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's 82-year-old dictator, was moving to rig a string of elections, they said. Egypt's young population was growing more agitated.
The bipartisan body that wrote to Mrs. Clinton, the Egypt Working Group, argued that the administration wasn't fully appraising the warning signs in Egypt. Its members came together in early 2010, concerned that the Arab world's biggest country was headed for transition but that the U.S. and others weren't preparing for a post-Mubarak era.
But in an email I received today, Professor Barry Rubin discloses that the warnings about Egypt go back two years - to the beginning of the Obama administration. And that they came from inside sources and not just from the Egypt Group.
[F]or more than two years a high-ranking Egyptian official has been warning about this (though he predicted more of an elite revolt against Mubarak than a popular one). We expected generally that Mubarak would die or be disabled, pass the presidency on to his son, and then the elite would revolt and throw out the Mubaraks. The popular revolt gave them an opportunity to do this earlier (and also because Mubarak literally lived too long.) That is the hidden story here. I don't know if Ferguson knows about this but what he said was not far off the mark.
So why didn't Obama listen? I would argue that this passage from the Journal article explains why.
The Obama administration reaped strategic gains from this outreach. Cairo embraced Mr. Obama's initiative to accelerate Arab-Israeli peace talks, hosting meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and attempting to broker a unity government between feuding Palestinian factions.
That's it folks. Once again, it's Obama's obsession with Israel and with bringing about the creation of a 'Palestinian state' that caused him to miss the entire Egyptian revolution. He's so obsessed with the 'Palestinians' that he ignores everything else that goes on in this region. And he continues this behavior even though - as Wikileaks made clear - the creation of a 'Palestinian state' is an obsession of the radical Left in the West, and not an obsession of the Arabs.
What else is the Obama administration missing through its obsession with the 'Palestinians' and what costs will it hold for the United States and the West?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
