Please help the hungry children of Israel.
Click here to Help:
Click here to Help:
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
LENNONISM IMAGINES THE MIDDLE EAST
http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/2008/rubin/4_14.asp
By Barry Rubin
The Middle East today is driven by five big conflicts: Among states for power; the Iran-Syria alliance’s war on everyone else; the struggle between Arab nationalists and Islamists to control each country, and the Sunni-Shia and the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
No wonder there’s so much turmoil.
To many in the West, this seems a time-wasting matter of “false consciousness.” One need merely explain their true interests to the Iranian and Syrian governments, to Hamas or Hizballah, to Arabs and Muslims, so they can rise to moderation. Western sins will be atoned by throwing out Israelis, Lebanese, and Iraqis with the bath water.
How can the doctrine now dominating Western discourse possibly understand these issues, especially when the song of the siren is heard in the land? Call it Lennonism, not the Leninism of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known as Lenin, but of former Beatles’ member, John Lennon.
His blueprint for utopia would be a better theme song for the European Union than its current anthem:
“Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do/Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too/Imagine all the people/Living life in peace....”
One can only refer here to George Gershwin’s earlier lyrics: “It ain’t necessarily so.”
There are several problems with Lennonism.
First, contrary to current wisdom, love of country and belief in religion can be a very productive thing, although of course that depends on specifics.
Second, despite the misdeeds committed in the name of deity and country, those doing them today are rarely from Western democracies. Ironically, those in Western societies, who are most likely to use them to good purpose are also those most eager to abandon them. After centuries, the West developed a tolerant form of patriotism and religion. Why abandon what you’ve already tuned properly? Having transcended the problems associated with religion and nationalism, the democratic world doesn’t need to discard them.
Third, it’s quite true that some use God to justify their own will and terrible deeds but, as Fyodor Dostoevsky reminded us in 1880, if God doesn’t exist morality is on a weak basis. Consider the case of Phil Spector, who produced the record of “Imagine.” While he beat the charge of first-degree murder of a woman who resisted his advances, the trial brought out his likely guilt, madness, violent propensity, and massive drug and alcohol abuse. What Lennon glorified as “Living for today,” usually means mindless consumerism.
For Karl Marx, religion was merely the masses’ “opiate,” a drug keeping them from realizing they should instead be overthrowing the ruling class and installing a socialist utopia. Marx was disagreeing with the proto-Zionist Moses Hess who called religion an opiate in the sense that it was a healing balm that reduced life’s pain.
Finally, patriotism might be the scoundrels’ last refuge, as Samuel Johnson said in 1775, but hating one’s country and religion is the first.
At any rate, the Middle East is not ready for this Lennonist vision. For those confronting the real threat of radical Arab nationalism and Islamism, Lennonism is unilateral disarmament. The more Lennonist the West, the more contemptuous and certain of victory are its enemies.
To make matters worse, Lennonists give the Middle East a free pass, arguing that Arabs and Muslims have such compelling grievances that they cannot be expected to indulge in this elevated philosophy. In effect, the Lennonists accept the notion that Western civilization is an empty cart which must give way at the bridge to the full cart of those who really believe in nationalism and religion.
According to this view, those who want to kill you are reacting to past oppression and so that makes it okay. The West must destroy its own patriotism and religion while appeasing that of those who “really mean it.” And let’s not forget that if you ridicule Christianity and Judaism or slander America or other democratic states no one will cut off your head. Instead, you will become a hero to the intellectual and cultural elite.
Thus, those who worship diversity define it at home as a situation in which no one dares disagree with them, and define it abroad as supporting quaint customs like dictatorship, lies, and oppression.
In Barrack Obama, America now has its first Lennonist presidential candidate. He recently accused average small-town Americans of being bitter over economic problems so that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is a version of the Marxist concept that anything other than determination to pursue economic well-being through a leftist utopian solution is “false consciousness.” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explained thirty years ago that anyone thinking Islamist revolution’s purpose was “to lower the price of housing or watermelons” was a fool.
Of course, Obama didn’t mind listening for 20 years to anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-middle class, and anti-white rants from his minister-mentor, who played on his congregation’s bitterness quite effectively to explain their frustrations in other terms. Poor Lennon himself was murdered by a deranged fan who listened to all the talk of peace and love, then responded in his own way.
The real world is tough. Conflict is real, hate effective, and there are people out there trying to kill you. Better hope there are some on your own side motivated enough by patriotism, religion, and love of liberty that they’ll put their bodies between you and the bullets because they think there is something worth killing and dying for.
Lennonism is intoxicating: believe in change; all can be okay if we just keep apologizing and don’t offend anyone. Unfortunately, though, nowadays there are many who, to quote Lennon, “dream the world will be one.” And the world they envision as one would be living under a caliphate.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) CenterEditor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal Editor, Turkish Studies
By Barry Rubin
The Middle East today is driven by five big conflicts: Among states for power; the Iran-Syria alliance’s war on everyone else; the struggle between Arab nationalists and Islamists to control each country, and the Sunni-Shia and the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
No wonder there’s so much turmoil.
To many in the West, this seems a time-wasting matter of “false consciousness.” One need merely explain their true interests to the Iranian and Syrian governments, to Hamas or Hizballah, to Arabs and Muslims, so they can rise to moderation. Western sins will be atoned by throwing out Israelis, Lebanese, and Iraqis with the bath water.
How can the doctrine now dominating Western discourse possibly understand these issues, especially when the song of the siren is heard in the land? Call it Lennonism, not the Leninism of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known as Lenin, but of former Beatles’ member, John Lennon.
His blueprint for utopia would be a better theme song for the European Union than its current anthem:
“Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do/Nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too/Imagine all the people/Living life in peace....”
One can only refer here to George Gershwin’s earlier lyrics: “It ain’t necessarily so.”
There are several problems with Lennonism.
First, contrary to current wisdom, love of country and belief in religion can be a very productive thing, although of course that depends on specifics.
Second, despite the misdeeds committed in the name of deity and country, those doing them today are rarely from Western democracies. Ironically, those in Western societies, who are most likely to use them to good purpose are also those most eager to abandon them. After centuries, the West developed a tolerant form of patriotism and religion. Why abandon what you’ve already tuned properly? Having transcended the problems associated with religion and nationalism, the democratic world doesn’t need to discard them.
Third, it’s quite true that some use God to justify their own will and terrible deeds but, as Fyodor Dostoevsky reminded us in 1880, if God doesn’t exist morality is on a weak basis. Consider the case of Phil Spector, who produced the record of “Imagine.” While he beat the charge of first-degree murder of a woman who resisted his advances, the trial brought out his likely guilt, madness, violent propensity, and massive drug and alcohol abuse. What Lennon glorified as “Living for today,” usually means mindless consumerism.
For Karl Marx, religion was merely the masses’ “opiate,” a drug keeping them from realizing they should instead be overthrowing the ruling class and installing a socialist utopia. Marx was disagreeing with the proto-Zionist Moses Hess who called religion an opiate in the sense that it was a healing balm that reduced life’s pain.
Finally, patriotism might be the scoundrels’ last refuge, as Samuel Johnson said in 1775, but hating one’s country and religion is the first.
At any rate, the Middle East is not ready for this Lennonist vision. For those confronting the real threat of radical Arab nationalism and Islamism, Lennonism is unilateral disarmament. The more Lennonist the West, the more contemptuous and certain of victory are its enemies.
To make matters worse, Lennonists give the Middle East a free pass, arguing that Arabs and Muslims have such compelling grievances that they cannot be expected to indulge in this elevated philosophy. In effect, the Lennonists accept the notion that Western civilization is an empty cart which must give way at the bridge to the full cart of those who really believe in nationalism and religion.
According to this view, those who want to kill you are reacting to past oppression and so that makes it okay. The West must destroy its own patriotism and religion while appeasing that of those who “really mean it.” And let’s not forget that if you ridicule Christianity and Judaism or slander America or other democratic states no one will cut off your head. Instead, you will become a hero to the intellectual and cultural elite.
Thus, those who worship diversity define it at home as a situation in which no one dares disagree with them, and define it abroad as supporting quaint customs like dictatorship, lies, and oppression.
In Barrack Obama, America now has its first Lennonist presidential candidate. He recently accused average small-town Americans of being bitter over economic problems so that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This is a version of the Marxist concept that anything other than determination to pursue economic well-being through a leftist utopian solution is “false consciousness.” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explained thirty years ago that anyone thinking Islamist revolution’s purpose was “to lower the price of housing or watermelons” was a fool.
Of course, Obama didn’t mind listening for 20 years to anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-middle class, and anti-white rants from his minister-mentor, who played on his congregation’s bitterness quite effectively to explain their frustrations in other terms. Poor Lennon himself was murdered by a deranged fan who listened to all the talk of peace and love, then responded in his own way.
The real world is tough. Conflict is real, hate effective, and there are people out there trying to kill you. Better hope there are some on your own side motivated enough by patriotism, religion, and love of liberty that they’ll put their bodies between you and the bullets because they think there is something worth killing and dying for.
Lennonism is intoxicating: believe in change; all can be okay if we just keep apologizing and don’t offend anyone. Unfortunately, though, nowadays there are many who, to quote Lennon, “dream the world will be one.” And the world they envision as one would be living under a caliphate.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Monday, April 14, 2008
FROG BITES SCORPION*
http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/2008/spyer/4_10.asp
By Barry Rubin
On April 9, Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip attacked the Nahal Oz fuel terminal in Israel near the border.
Two Israeli workers were killed.
Shortly before, a shipment of diesel fuel for the Gaza power plant, paid for by the European Union, had left there.
What makes this attack especially significant—and horrible—is that the only reason the terminal was open and the workers were present was to supply the needs of the Gaza Strip’s population. In previous months, the international media and many governments criticized Israel for not doing enough to help Gaza, despite the fact that the area is ruled by an openly anti-Semitic regime which makes clear its goal of destroying Israel, and also daily fires mortars and rockets into Israel.
Indeed, as part of this attack, several mortar shells were fired at the terminal.
Hamas, and the world, cannot have it both ways. Either Hamas is the aggressor while Israel is the victim, in which case there should be full international support and favorable media coverage for Israel.
Or if unwilling to take such an appropriate stance, the world cannot expect Israel to risk its people’s lives to fuel Gaza machine shops that make rockets to assault it and should stop complaining about Israeli actions in self-defense.
In either case, the latest attacks make even clear what should already be obvious: Hamas is responsible for any suffering in the Gaza Strip. And if Israel should cut off all fuel deliveries to the Gaza power plant, which would only affect about one-quarter of the area’s supplies, it is fully justified in doing so.
The situation, however, goes even beyond this: Hamas is deliberately intensifying the suffering in order to use it as a pretext for its own failure as government, its attacks on Israel, and its ability to beg for international support for victim.
Could the situation possibly be any more obvious?
Apparently it is still not obvious enough for too much of the media and too much of the Western political establishments.
Of course, there are many exceptions and more so as time goes on.
One of the classic Middle East stories is the tale of the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion demands that the frog provide a ride across the river on his back. "But you will sting me and I will die," protests the frog.
The scorpion points out, in response, that since he cannot swim he would not do such a rash thing since he, too, would drown.
The frog agrees.
The scorpion climbs onto the frog and they set off. But in the middle of the river the scorpion stings the frog, and as they sink beneath the water the frog complains, "Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die!"
And the scorpion complains: "Well, what do you expect, this is the Middle East."
So goes the story in its traditional form. But now we can add some additional modern touches.
First, in the new version the scorpion declares that he will sting the frog without any doubt. But the frog agrees to take the scorpion because he is encouraged or intimidated by onlookers’ remarks on onlookers—"What! You won’t take that poor scorpion on a ride? What kind of imperialist, racist aggressor are you?"
Second, after the duo drowns, the next day newspapers run the following headlines:
"Frog in Unprovoked Attack on Scorpion!"
"Cycle of Violence Continues"
"Frog Uses Excessive Force on Scorpion Civilian"
* Based on the classic journalistic saying, "Man Bites Dog, news; Dog Bites Man, no news.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il Editor, Turkish Studies
By Barry Rubin
On April 9, Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip attacked the Nahal Oz fuel terminal in Israel near the border.
Two Israeli workers were killed.
Shortly before, a shipment of diesel fuel for the Gaza power plant, paid for by the European Union, had left there.
What makes this attack especially significant—and horrible—is that the only reason the terminal was open and the workers were present was to supply the needs of the Gaza Strip’s population. In previous months, the international media and many governments criticized Israel for not doing enough to help Gaza, despite the fact that the area is ruled by an openly anti-Semitic regime which makes clear its goal of destroying Israel, and also daily fires mortars and rockets into Israel.
Indeed, as part of this attack, several mortar shells were fired at the terminal.
Hamas, and the world, cannot have it both ways. Either Hamas is the aggressor while Israel is the victim, in which case there should be full international support and favorable media coverage for Israel.
Or if unwilling to take such an appropriate stance, the world cannot expect Israel to risk its people’s lives to fuel Gaza machine shops that make rockets to assault it and should stop complaining about Israeli actions in self-defense.
In either case, the latest attacks make even clear what should already be obvious: Hamas is responsible for any suffering in the Gaza Strip. And if Israel should cut off all fuel deliveries to the Gaza power plant, which would only affect about one-quarter of the area’s supplies, it is fully justified in doing so.
The situation, however, goes even beyond this: Hamas is deliberately intensifying the suffering in order to use it as a pretext for its own failure as government, its attacks on Israel, and its ability to beg for international support for victim.
Could the situation possibly be any more obvious?
Apparently it is still not obvious enough for too much of the media and too much of the Western political establishments.
Of course, there are many exceptions and more so as time goes on.
One of the classic Middle East stories is the tale of the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion demands that the frog provide a ride across the river on his back. "But you will sting me and I will die," protests the frog.
The scorpion points out, in response, that since he cannot swim he would not do such a rash thing since he, too, would drown.
The frog agrees.
The scorpion climbs onto the frog and they set off. But in the middle of the river the scorpion stings the frog, and as they sink beneath the water the frog complains, "Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die!"
And the scorpion complains: "Well, what do you expect, this is the Middle East."
So goes the story in its traditional form. But now we can add some additional modern touches.
First, in the new version the scorpion declares that he will sting the frog without any doubt. But the frog agrees to take the scorpion because he is encouraged or intimidated by onlookers’ remarks on onlookers—"What! You won’t take that poor scorpion on a ride? What kind of imperialist, racist aggressor are you?"
Second, after the duo drowns, the next day newspapers run the following headlines:
"Frog in Unprovoked Attack on Scorpion!"
"Cycle of Violence Continues"
"Frog Uses Excessive Force on Scorpion Civilian"
* Based on the classic journalistic saying, "Man Bites Dog, news; Dog Bites Man, no news.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il Editor, Turkish Studies
SMUGLY ENSURING FAILURE
By Barry Rubin
"Rice Wins Concessions from Israel," read the Washington Post headline after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit. Rice herself told reporters her goal was to further Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) talks by getting Israeli concessions to "improve the quality of life" for Palestinians.
She listed ten different Israeli concessions including: removing 50 roadblocks, easing checkpoint procedures, increasing travel and work permits, backing economic projects, letting 700 U.S.-trained PA security men deploy, and giving the PA armored vehicles and night-vision goggles.
Rice claimed success, saying talks are now "moving in the right direction."
Are they? Will these concessions make the PA more stable or moderate? No.
One wonders if we’ll ever see the headline: "Rice Wins Concessions from Palestinians." I doubt it.
How should one score this outcome: Israel 10, PA 0, because Israel might get international credit for taking risks for peace? Or the opposite, PA 10, Israel 0, since the former side got all the material gains?
Certainly, the PA isn’t bragging. On the contrary, it denies Israel gives anything and doesn’t take advantage of such measures--or the huge aid it receives--to improve its’ people’s quality of life. That’s something only Westerners care about.
To comprehend its worldview and strategy, consider PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s March 29 speech to the Arab summit in Damascus. That presentation, along with the summit itself, shows the trap in which Arab politics is stuck.
Even Abbas’s opening Koran quote presents a paradox: "If you will aid the cause of Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly." Abbas’s rivals, both in Hamas and among his own Fatah radicals, say that’s what they do: follow divine will and feet-planting by rejecting concessions and continuing war to total victory.
His second point is a professed confidence "that we all do agree that...a joint Arab stand and action suffices" to bring success. This line, used for 50 years, is wrong on both counts: there’s no Arab unity and even if there were it wouldn’t suffice. Indeed, this was a most divisive Arab summit, with the Saudis and Jordanians leading opposition to Syria’s attempt to seize control of Lebanon.
His third theme was that while Palestinians "remain committed to the option of a just peace, the two-state solution...Israel pursues its aggression and occupation, the construction of settlements, and the Judaization of Jerusalem." Rather than portraying Israel’s current government as wanting a deal he says it aims to seize all but "a few isolated areas."
This is the government that withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and is willing to pull out of most of the rest. Yet according to him, it "seeks to undermine the possible establishment of an independent state on the land of the Palestinian people."
But if so, how can the Palestinians make peace with Israel? Why is Hamas wrong in saying that only victory through violence can work?
In his telling, Israel’s aggression is unprovoked. He speaks of "barbaric attacks, causing hundreds of defenseless victims," and its evil intent to "undermine the possibility of reaching a peace agreement...."
He basically ignores constant attacks on Israel from Gaza and offers no credible way to deal with them. He merely asks Hamas to give him Gaza and return to being one party in a PA-dominated system. This won’t happen. Hamas will keep attacking Israel and trying to take over the West Bank. For all this, he blames not Hamas—with whom he desperately tries to conciliate—but only Israel.
Here’s the trap: Hamas (and elements in Fatah) attack Israel, Israel responds, Abbas cites this as proof Israel doesn’t want peace, and thus negotiations cannot succeed. His bottom line: "The Israeli government seeks by the power of its occupation to impose a political solution on the ground according to its own wishes."
Meanwhile, instead of competing with Hamas, the PA uses Western aid to subsidize Hamas, spending, according to Abbas, 58 percent of its budget on Gaza and paying salaries for 77,000 employees there, more than it has itself! In theory, this projects PA influence; in practice it ensures Hamas holds power. He gives Hamas money unconditionally while begging it to hand Gaza back to him.
While Abbas has no strategy for regaining Gaza or making peace with Israel, his rivals have a clear, simple program appealing to reigning passions and worldview. As Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah puts it: "The Zionist entity can be wiped out of existence. Our nation is stronger now than ever before." Only "Zionist-American propaganda" –in which he includes Abbas—wants to fool Arabs and Muslims into thinking they "don't have any hopes of winning."
The U.S. State Department excused Abbas’s speech as just rhetoric. But that’s untrue. Abbas feeds the Hamas-Iran line by demonizing Israel and implying negotiations are useless. He’s not even trying to win his own people’s support by improving their lives.
We’ve become so used to this behavior that we forget there’s an alternative. Abbas could say: "Israel is ready to make peace with us if we prove we’ll keep our pledges. Let’s defeat the radical Islamists, stop the attacks on Israel that breed conflict, end incitement to violence, reform our own regimes, align with the West, and get an independent state."
Israel needs to work with Abbas and keep him afloat as the lesser of two evils to Hamas. But Abbas is incapable of making peace or regaining Gaza. His PA regime might fall to Hamas or be taken over, on his not-distant retirement, by still-dominant Fatah radicals even more eager to ally with Hamas and return to armed struggle.
Here’s where Rice, and much Western policy, is wrong. By not demanding and getting PA concessions and by giving money unconditionally they ensure not only that peace will fail but that there will be decades of conflict ahead.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org
http://meria.idc.ac.il Editor, Turkish Studies
http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/2008/rubin/4_7asp
"Rice Wins Concessions from Israel," read the Washington Post headline after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent visit. Rice herself told reporters her goal was to further Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) talks by getting Israeli concessions to "improve the quality of life" for Palestinians.
She listed ten different Israeli concessions including: removing 50 roadblocks, easing checkpoint procedures, increasing travel and work permits, backing economic projects, letting 700 U.S.-trained PA security men deploy, and giving the PA armored vehicles and night-vision goggles.
Rice claimed success, saying talks are now "moving in the right direction."
Are they? Will these concessions make the PA more stable or moderate? No.
One wonders if we’ll ever see the headline: "Rice Wins Concessions from Palestinians." I doubt it.
How should one score this outcome: Israel 10, PA 0, because Israel might get international credit for taking risks for peace? Or the opposite, PA 10, Israel 0, since the former side got all the material gains?
Certainly, the PA isn’t bragging. On the contrary, it denies Israel gives anything and doesn’t take advantage of such measures--or the huge aid it receives--to improve its’ people’s quality of life. That’s something only Westerners care about.
To comprehend its worldview and strategy, consider PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s March 29 speech to the Arab summit in Damascus. That presentation, along with the summit itself, shows the trap in which Arab politics is stuck.
Even Abbas’s opening Koran quote presents a paradox: "If you will aid the cause of Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly." Abbas’s rivals, both in Hamas and among his own Fatah radicals, say that’s what they do: follow divine will and feet-planting by rejecting concessions and continuing war to total victory.
His second point is a professed confidence "that we all do agree that...a joint Arab stand and action suffices" to bring success. This line, used for 50 years, is wrong on both counts: there’s no Arab unity and even if there were it wouldn’t suffice. Indeed, this was a most divisive Arab summit, with the Saudis and Jordanians leading opposition to Syria’s attempt to seize control of Lebanon.
His third theme was that while Palestinians "remain committed to the option of a just peace, the two-state solution...Israel pursues its aggression and occupation, the construction of settlements, and the Judaization of Jerusalem." Rather than portraying Israel’s current government as wanting a deal he says it aims to seize all but "a few isolated areas."
This is the government that withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and is willing to pull out of most of the rest. Yet according to him, it "seeks to undermine the possible establishment of an independent state on the land of the Palestinian people."
But if so, how can the Palestinians make peace with Israel? Why is Hamas wrong in saying that only victory through violence can work?
In his telling, Israel’s aggression is unprovoked. He speaks of "barbaric attacks, causing hundreds of defenseless victims," and its evil intent to "undermine the possibility of reaching a peace agreement...."
He basically ignores constant attacks on Israel from Gaza and offers no credible way to deal with them. He merely asks Hamas to give him Gaza and return to being one party in a PA-dominated system. This won’t happen. Hamas will keep attacking Israel and trying to take over the West Bank. For all this, he blames not Hamas—with whom he desperately tries to conciliate—but only Israel.
Here’s the trap: Hamas (and elements in Fatah) attack Israel, Israel responds, Abbas cites this as proof Israel doesn’t want peace, and thus negotiations cannot succeed. His bottom line: "The Israeli government seeks by the power of its occupation to impose a political solution on the ground according to its own wishes."
Meanwhile, instead of competing with Hamas, the PA uses Western aid to subsidize Hamas, spending, according to Abbas, 58 percent of its budget on Gaza and paying salaries for 77,000 employees there, more than it has itself! In theory, this projects PA influence; in practice it ensures Hamas holds power. He gives Hamas money unconditionally while begging it to hand Gaza back to him.
While Abbas has no strategy for regaining Gaza or making peace with Israel, his rivals have a clear, simple program appealing to reigning passions and worldview. As Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah puts it: "The Zionist entity can be wiped out of existence. Our nation is stronger now than ever before." Only "Zionist-American propaganda" –in which he includes Abbas—wants to fool Arabs and Muslims into thinking they "don't have any hopes of winning."
The U.S. State Department excused Abbas’s speech as just rhetoric. But that’s untrue. Abbas feeds the Hamas-Iran line by demonizing Israel and implying negotiations are useless. He’s not even trying to win his own people’s support by improving their lives.
We’ve become so used to this behavior that we forget there’s an alternative. Abbas could say: "Israel is ready to make peace with us if we prove we’ll keep our pledges. Let’s defeat the radical Islamists, stop the attacks on Israel that breed conflict, end incitement to violence, reform our own regimes, align with the West, and get an independent state."
Israel needs to work with Abbas and keep him afloat as the lesser of two evils to Hamas. But Abbas is incapable of making peace or regaining Gaza. His PA regime might fall to Hamas or be taken over, on his not-distant retirement, by still-dominant Fatah radicals even more eager to ally with Hamas and return to armed struggle.
Here’s where Rice, and much Western policy, is wrong. By not demanding and getting PA concessions and by giving money unconditionally they ensure not only that peace will fail but that there will be decades of conflict ahead.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Professor Barry Rubin,Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org
http://meria.idc.ac.il Editor, Turkish Studies
http://www.gloriacenter.org/index.asp?pname=submenus/articles/2008/rubin/4_7asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky