Obama's Mid East Moments of Truth

By Barry Rubin

1. Syria: A Tragedy

By far the best source of news on the Syrian revolution is Syria Revolution Digest by the heroically tireless Ammar Abdulhamid. Every day he puts in a little summary of the situation. Here is what he wrote for October 11:

“As [the dictatorship of the] Assads take back Syria, one neighborhood and one town at a time, opposition groups continue to wrangle over seats in a stillborn [leadership] council, as the world considers options that have no bearing on reality.”

Several thousand people have been murdered yet despite all the fine words, there has been little serious international action as the violence has continued for months.

“As [the] Assads take back Syria, one neighborhood and one town at a time, opposition groups continue to wrangle over seats in a stillborn council, as the world considers options that have no bearing on reality.”

And on October 13 he wrote that there are two opposition movements now, one dedicated to non-violence and the other to armed struggle:

“Despite the fact that pro-Assad troops are busy taking back Syria one rebellious community at a time, battling defectors and suppressing protests through targeted and mass detentions and killings, advocates of nonviolence seem to labor under the belief that an Assad victory…will pave the way for a return to nonviolent struggle. What they fail to see is that a defeat will more likely crush the spirit of the re-conquered communities, and could empower the Assads to snuff out the spirit of rebellion.”

“So many observers and opposition figures have been saying that Syria cannot go back to the way things were, but they are wrong. As things stand at this stage, this is the most likely outcome.”

2. Obama Administration Seeks Political Arrangement with Anti-American Terrorists

Meanwhile, the indispensible AfPak Channel newsletter reports that the Obama Administration is now ready to negotiate with Taliban and even al-Qaida linked terrorist groups (the Haqqani network) to participate in governing the country. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, anyone who wants to participate in talks can do so. The Afghan government is not thrilled with this policy, being carried out against its will since these are the people trying to kill it. The Haqqani network murdered the president’s brother last month. And NATO officials continue to produce misleadingly optimistic reports about how the war is going, including claims that the Taliban is on the run. This is patently untrue.

3. The Iran-Mexico Affair

Vice-President Joe Biden threatens that Iran would be held accountable and the U.S. government is seeking to mobilize “world opinion” (oh, brother! headline showing how effective that is: “Despite sanctions, German exports to Tehran have increased“) for its response. The administration should be given time to act but will it do something serious or not? If not, it should be held accountable. And if it has made a potentially huge international crisis out of a misreading of evidence it should also be held accountable.

But we live in bizarre times. I never expected to see a headline like–I made this up but it reflects the situation–”President and Vice-President Endorse Demonstrations Demanding Destruction of Capitalism.”

4. Remember the Iranian Opposition?

Here’s an excellent discussion on the Iranian opposition by Genevieve Abdo. She points out the startling fact that the two main leaders of the Green Movement–Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi–have been under arrest held in small apartments since February, that’s eight months ago! The world has said nothing; the Western media little. This is shocking and disgusting. In general, only anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Israel forces get honored by the West, taught about in Western universities, have demonstrations in their support by students, and are lionized by Western intellectuals.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

EPA Gives Advice To Sesame Street's Ernie

By Barry Rubin

I keep coming across–on Internet and radio–ads produced by the U.S. government on every conceivable health and behavioral issue. They may be carried for free on sites and channels but there are still tax-paid employees producing and distributing them. They serve as fitting examples of what’s wrong with government today. And it’s really funny when they turn up in huge quantity on local radio broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh and other anti-big government programs.

Sure they are for nominally good causes, for example the don’t take your toys into the bedroom because they cause asthma attacks campaign. Then there are unforgettable ad campaigns over a guy who died because he ate too many fatty foods, why we should ride bicycles to work, warnings against crooked house mortgage companies, insistence that we go get medical check-ups, and countless others.

But the one that set me off is on Yahoo today. It shows an orange and yellow fish and says: “Dry off tub toys and bath area to prevent mildew.” And below it are logos for the Ad Council and the EPA. If you click you get to this site:

http://www.noattacks.org/

which also carries the EPA logo. And if you click there you get here: http://www.epa.gov/ which tells us all the wonderful things EPA is doing to police the air, water, etc.

Now, I’m not for childhood asthma, I have a touch of it myself, but is the purpose of the U.S. government to tell us to dry off bath toys? Besides, let’s face it, while these messages are nominally good do they have any effect on the real world? Are we defending the poor kids with asthma or obesity or the jobs of Federal bureaucrats running these programs that, I assume, don’t really help anyone. I’d bet that this kind of thing costs a good half billion or so in ad-writing, distribution, site-maintaining, and other time.

The test of any government program should be:

–Is it within the rightful, legal, and Constitutional tasks of the U.S. government?

–Do they really do any good in the real world?

–Are the costs of these programs worth paying, especially in a time of massive deficits and borrowing?

Could some investigative reporter look into this and total up all the money involved.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Things Be Rotten in the State of Egypt

By Barry Rubin

There’s a new political timeline for Egypt. Apparently horrified by disorder and radicalization, the military junta has decided to slow things down.

Its proposal is for parliamentary elections on November 28, with the resulting parliament choosing a committee to write a new constitution by April 2012. That group will have a year to produce the new document and only then — after April 2013 — will there be presidential elections. Bottom line: The generals will retain executive power for the next 18 months.

What’s likely to happen in the elections? My estimate is that the Muslim Brotherhood will be the single largest party, with 30 to 40 percent of the seats.

In contrast to the united Islamists, there are more than a dozen moderate parties. The three main ones are the left-oriented Justice Party, the opportunistic Wafd Party, and the Free Egyptians’ Party, the closest thing to an anti-Islamist moderate force.

These three will each get roughly 15 percent of the seats and will consequently be much weaker than the Brotherhood and will perhaps be willing to make deals with it in order to get a share of power. Most of the remaining seats are likely to go to a party favoring the old regime. That party might do better than expected as bad conditions make some Egyptians nostalgic for the Mubarak days.

If so, the Brotherhood won’t be taking power in Egypt soon, but there will be a radical (leftist, nationalist, Islamist) majority in parliament. As different as these ideologies are, they’re united by their opposition to America, the West, and Israel and their support for radical groups abroad — especially Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip.

In addition, the Brotherhood will play a central role in writing the new constitution, which will enshrine Sharia as the main but not sole source of legislation.

There are many other ways in which the Brotherhood can lay the foundation for its future rule. For example, it wants to bring the two top Islamic offices — mufti and Al-Azhar University head — under parliamentary control. This will let it control Islam in Egypt, even choosing mosque preachers and religious teachers throughout the country.

Yet the Brotherhood doesn’t seem eager to take power quickly. The group continues to have a strong cautious — though that’s not the same thing as moderate — streak, having suffered bloody repression in past decades. To move too fast might upset the military and unite the group’s opponents, whose divisions will make them easier to conquer.

There’s another reason for the Brotherhood’s hesitation. Egypt’s economic situation is terrible and likely to get far worse. The Brotherhood doesn’t want to be blamed when the crash comes, preferring to go tsk-tsk at the alleged evils of capitalism, the Mubarak era, foreign aid, and the International Monetary Fund. It could then approach a frightened public with the comforting assertion that Islam is the answer to all of Egypt’s woes.

Is a war with Israel possible? If the military holds onto executive power into the second half of 2013, that’s far less likely. The worst-case scenario is if Hamas deliberately starts a fracas with Israel — firing rockets and mortars by the score and launching cross-border raids — to provoke retaliation.

The Brotherhood, radical nationalists, Salafi super-extremist Islamist groups, and leftists would then demand that Egypt go to the aid of the brothers next door. At a minimum, this would mean letting volunteers, money, and weapons flow into the Gaza Strip. At a maximum, it could bring direct involvement of an Egyptian leadership too frightened and stirred up to resist. Probably, though, until Egypt has a president, that outcome is not so likely.

Meanwhile, what is far more probable is that the domestic situation will deteriorate further, with the first and greatest victims being Egyptian Christians. The number of Coptic Christians in Egypt is greater than the entire population of Israel, Jordan, or Lebanon. A recent report by an Egyptian human rights group claims that almost 100,000 Christians have left the country since January.

With almost daily attacks on Christians and the destruction of churches by mobs, the violence is escalating. Neither government officials nor the army will help the Christians, who can also not depend on any foreign protection.

Except for the military — and it often appeases anti-Christian, Islamist, and anti-foreign forces — there is absolutely nothing to prevent the further radicalization of the situation in Egypt, which also includes rampant crime and skyrocketing inflation. The dream of a moderate, stable, and democratic Egypt is quickly becoming a nightmare.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Here and There in the Middle East: Fleeing Christians, “Moderate” Imam, Mad Turkish Leader, Syrian Revolution

By Barry Rubin

1. Fleeing Christians

Christians are fleeing the Middle East and Western Christians are indifferent. More than half of Iraqi Christians, threatened with death and terrorism are out of that country, though many are in neighboring Syria. Virtually all Christians have fled the Islamist Gaza Strip and Syrian Christians generally (though not all) support the regime there, fearing an Islamist takeover.

But Egypt is home to millions of Christians that dwarf these numbers. In fact, the number of Christians in Egypt exceeds the populations of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia.

Copts have emigrated in the past, but they have been so rooted in Egypt as to tend to remain there. Now the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations reports that 95,000 Christians have emigrated since March 2011. If Egypt continues to look as if it is going down an Islamist road, or at least if the government and military appear ready to tolerate such assaults, one can easily imagine one million or so Copts heading for the exits in the next few years. How would Europe like to receive these people who—in contrast to many other immigrants—would be legitimate asylum seekers with a genuine fear for their lives?

2. Mad Turkish Prime Minister

It’s rather clear that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist regime hates Israel. What’s less apparent to many people is that Erdogan has gone off the deep end into antisemitic insanity. If you didn’t know who was speaking you’d think Erdogan was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Turkey, like other countries, isn’t perfect, in modern times the Turkish Republic has been a rather sane and development-oriented countries. It’s quite a change to have a Turkish leader literally foaming at the mouth, to the point where the opposition leader asked a few months if Erdogan was planning to go to war against Israel. Now that the regime—with no international opposition or criticism—has crushed the armed forces, there’s nothing to hold Erdogan back.

On a CNN interview, Erdogan ridiculed the idea that Israelis need fear massive rocket and mortar barrages from the Gaza Strip because few Israelis were killed, while in contrast Israel had killed—according to the CNN translation “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.” The Turkish government responded that he had not said that figure but merely “tens of thousands.”

It’s nice to know that Israel is just being accused of being a mass murder on a smaller scale. Eogan also says that the world is a slave to the UN Security Council (a precise copy of Ahmadinejad’s long-standing theme) and demands sanctions against Israel. He also copies Ahmadinejad in asking why Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran not have them. (Aside from Iran’s threats of genocide, one reason is that Iran’s program breaks an international agreement signed by that country.) At times, Erdogan has talked about war against Israel, his main complaint being the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled legal under international law and, anyway, is made pretty irrelevant by the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border.

Israel cannot be trusted, Erdogan says; it is the villain that has prevented peace. It’s just plain evil. One almost expects Erdogan to break out in German. Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, famously said that his country’s foreign policy was one of “peace at home, peace abroad.” Erdogan sounds more like: Today Gaza, tomorrow the world!

The idea that such a huge and powerful country as Turkey is led by a guy acting like a madman who throws temper tantrums (his performance at the Davos conference is a case in point) has not prevented the Obama Administration from doing nothing and, indeed, increasing hi power. After all, Turkey is now co-chair of the new U.S. counterterrorism organization and the designated mediator for the future of Syria. And the same applies to the escalating repression and crushing of democracy within Turkey.

3. Syria’s New Stage: Civil War

–Can Assad hold on?
The simple answer is that nobody knows. One thing is for certain: looking at other dictator having been hung, put on trial, or fleeing into exile, the family of President Bashar al-Asad and his allies will not go quietly. Only if they are forced out of power at gunpoint will they be displaced.

The wider problem is that the government does have a strong base of support among the Alawite minority, Christians, and some Sunni Muslims. These people are worried about being targeted by a revolution, even with the possibility of massacres against the first two groups, which comprise roughly one-quarter of the population.

In other words, the battle will continue for months, will probably become more violent, and the outcome is not certain.

–What are the prospects for civil war?

I think we are now entering the civil war phase.

–Is there a signifcant danger of Islamists wielding great power like in Egypt?

There is a very real chance of an Islamist takeover but it is lower than in Egypt. The Syrian are more urbanized, more secular, and most important of all far more diverse. Remember that in Egypt 90 percent are Sunni Muslim Arabs while in Syria that figure is about 60 percent. The Syrian Brotherhood has never been as strong as its Egyptian counterpart.

The best assessment, then, is that the danger is less. But what is very worrisome–even insane–is the Obama Administration’s insistence on using Islamist Turkey as mediator, a mediator that favor the Islamists!

–Would a post-Assad Syrian govt likely be friendlier to the US?

There is some real anti-Americanism in the opposition. The Obama Administration has put the Untied States into the position of being regarded by many Syrians as protector of the Asad regime. It’s one thing to have that happen in Egypt–a government that was allied with America–but why in Syria, the most anti-Ameriican of all Arab regimes?

If a non-Islamist regime emerges it would be less hostile to the United States but whether that’s by a small or significant margin is open to question.

4. “Moderate Imam”

In a June 23, 2011 article, Ahmad al-Tayeb, the head of al-Azhar, took a quite moderate line in interpreting Islam and showing openness toward Christianity and Judaism. A MEMRI articledoes a good job of describing what he wrote. For

example, he said:

“A Muslim cannot imagine all of mankind sharing a single creed or turning to a single religion – even if this religion is Islam. As long as this remains the case, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims [must be] one of mutual recognition.

But why did he write it? I suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear that al-Tayeb is not welcome to continue in his job under the new order. It wants to put in one of its own people, both as head of al-Azhar and as Egypt’s qadi (leading Islamic official). The Brotherhood wants to use these positions to revolutionize Islam in Egypt and turn it into a radical Islamist institution.

Remember that even if the Brotherhood doesn’t take over the government or control the presidency it is likely to make deals with other parties: We will support what you want in exchange for your giving us control over religious institutions.

And why, just a little later did he launch a virulent attack against Shia Muslims? Because he is defining his position as being hostile to Iran and Hizballah as Egypt’s enemies. This anti-Shia position is more congenial to the Brotherhood which shares this hotility.

So Tayeb is carving out for himself the position of moderate Muslim who backs Egyptian national interests in order to build a support base against the Islamists. This aligns him not only with reformists but also with nationalists. The political battle in Egypt may be mirrored by a struggle over the control of Islam in that country.

A third plank in the al-Azhar platform was put forward by one of Tayeb’s deputies a few days later in a virulently antisemitic tirade that hints at genocide against the Jews, reminding us that Middle East “moderation,” after all, almost always has its limits.

5. Egypt’s Election: Party Maneuvers

The Wafd Party has ended its electoral alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party because it thinks it can do better on its own. The Wafd wasn’t satisfied with the number of seats the Brotherhood offered in the deal.

Note that this has nothing to do with differences between a liberal democratic add an Islamist party. The problem is merely how much the Brotherhood would pay. As the Wafd spokesman explained:

“We withdrew from the electoral alliance because we had a lot of candidates and the available places in the list weren’t enough,”

There are now three blocs led by the Muslim-Brotherhood and Wafd—with members of their now-defunct alliance choosing sides—and a 14-party group called the Egyptian Bloc, led by the left-leaning liberal Justice party. Note how the “liberal” parties are splitting their vote while the Islamists have united.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

How Do We Know Definitively That Israel’s Critics Are Wrong? Because of What They Say

Note: You might well want to read this in conjunction with my article, “It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Think That Way.”

By Barry Rubin

People frequently ask me to respond to the latest article of You Know Who, Complete Ignoramus, or even the World’s Most Pompous Columnist, and various others of that ilk. I almost always respond that I’ve done that kind of thing already, or at this point one should only ignore such people, or it is better to spend one’s time writing constructively to explain reality than to waste time combatting endlessly recycled lies and nonsense.

But then I realized that there was a totally different and far more revealing way of approaching this issue, a way of using this kind of criticism to show precisely how wrong it is.

The basic line of criticism being used is that Israel doesn’t know what’s good for itself. Here it has this wonderful opportunity to have an independent Palestinian state next door, thus the conflict would be over, Arabs and Muslims would all accept Israel, and there would be no more war, no more bloodshed. The West would also love Israel.

All of the country’s problems would be over! Why are Israelis so blind to elect such a government when they should elect one that is willing to go back to the 1967 borders, accept a Palestinian state with minimal conditions, and stop making any demands of its own? Don’t worry, be happy!

Or to put it into song, specifically Ed McCurdy’s “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream”:


“I dreamed I saw a mighty room…

And the paper they were signing said

They’d never fight again….



“And the people in the streets below

Were dancing ’round and ’round

While swords and guns and uniforms

Were scattered on the ground.”

Well, it is a wonderful dream, may it come true speedily in our times.

But the Middle East version might go like this:

And while people in the streets below

Were dancing ’round and ’round,

The other side took up swords and guns and

Put the well-intentioned fools in the ground.

Or, to put it another way, where you have governments like those in Iran, Syria, the Gaza Strip (Hamas), Lebanon (dominated by Hizballah), and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists who daily preach death to Israel and kill the Jews, the McCurdy vision should curdle your blood.

But you know that already. Here’s what’s new: What should You Know Who, the Complete Ignoramus, the World’s Most Pompous Columnist, and various others of that ilk be writing? In other words, if you want to challenge Israel’s stance how should you do it?

The answer is by taking the exact opposite position. Here it is:

Acknowledgment of experience:

Israel and Israelis have good reasons for being mistrustful based on what they have lived through during recent decades.

1. Acknowledgement of responsibility:

We know that the West has let Israel down by naiveté toward its enemies, failure to provide sufficient support, excess and unfair criticism.

2. Awareness of Israel’s legitimate needs

We understand that Israel needs secure borders, strong security guarantees, limits on Palestine’s armaments, an iron-clad commitment that a peace agreement ends the conflict, and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine.

3. Understanding of the dangers of a Palestine state and what’s needed to produce a stable, lasting peace

We know that a Palestinian state could continue cross-border attacks, incitement to murder Israelis, and a military build-up that would threaten Israel, viewing the new situation as not one of peace but of a second stage in the battle. We must take steps to stop this from destroying a peace agreement.

4. The regional scene

We understand that we failed to live up to our commitment to Israel in the 2006 Lebanon ceasefire agreement—letting Hizballah return to the south—and that the current regional scene is very dangerous. Consequently, we understand that absolute clarity is needed on revolutionary Islamism’s threat, combatting Iranian influence, helping moderate democratic movements but doing all possible against radical ones (even if camouflaged as moderate), comprehending Turkey’s transformation by an Islamist regime and opposing it. We will work with Israel and other moderate forces against the revolutionaries and those who want to wipe it off the map.

5. The conclusion

Therefore on the basis of this absolute clarity of the threat to Israel and of our need to fight against it—especially since these are also anti-Western forces–we are working for a just, stable, and lasting two-state solution. Let us together devise methods of making this work.

Now, that would be a lot more persuasive. Or to put it graphically:

Current critique of Israel’s policies:

You will now jump off the cliff for your own good! Nothing can possibly go wrong! There is no yawning chasm, no precipitous drop, no pointy rocks below! Your claiming otherwise is purely a mirage, if not a deliberate lie. How dare you not jump when we tell you to do so! You’re so stupid! Maybe you really are evil!

Persuasive critique of Israel’s policies:

Here is the finest possible bungee cord. I have done comparison shopping and this is the best there is. Let’s run some tests and set up the jump as close as possible to your specifications. We will stake our lives on making sure your enemies don’t cut the rope. We will search them thoroughly to make sure they don’t have knives and can’t come close enough to fiddle with the equipment. Oh, and we will make sure they jump also from their cliff and not just stand by while you take all the risks.

Nothing can be more conducive to knowing you are right than seeing how bad are your foes’ arguments. It’s one thing for people to disagree with you and even criticize you, but quite another when you examine their arguments closely and find that they are simply out of touch with reality, biased, and illogical as well. We really read what they say and write very carefully; they ignore what we say and write (except occasionally in the hope of finding something misworded that can be turned into a “gotcha!” claim).

At the same time, though, I’m not going to risk my life, the lives of my family, country, and people on the demonstrable ignorance of those who give advice so bad that it doesn’t even pretend to take into account those risks.

And it is the very nature of these criticisms—naïvely based on wishful thinking and ignoring threats rather than based on a since and sophisticated understanding and response to them—that is the most persuasive proof of all that they are wrong.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Here Come The Arab Elections (Oh Goody)

By Barry Rubin

Tunisia has scheduled elections for October 23. The National Constituent Assembly will have 218 members and will draw up a new constitution. Remember, by the way, that Tunisia has the most secular-oriented constitution in the Arab world. One wonders what will happen in that regard.

This assembly will also set the rules for parliamentary and presidential elections to be held at some time next year.

Tunisia’s Islamists are weaker than in any other Muslim-majority country in the Middle East. A different problem, however, has developed: the incredible division of other parties. Thus while the Islamist party, Ennahda, is at only about 20 percent, the rest of the vote is divided about 80 parties, no one of which has huge support at this point. To give a sense of this mess, note that there are about 11,000 candidates for these seats, which means about 50 per seat!

That fact could turn a 20 percent Islamist vote into an Islamist landslide. Remember that the Islamists seized control of Turkey with only about 30 percent of the votes. And it gets worse. Imagine when parties are negotiating over the Constitution and the election rules. The Islamists will have extra weight in forming alliances and making deals.

Thus, as Westerners celebrate the joys of democracy in Tunisia — 11,000 candidates! See how the people love freedom! — the Islamists might be using it to seize state power.

What could Western countries be doing? Well, it’s not very nice but in the real world they could be persuading and pressuring moderate anti-Islamists to form alliances and set up joint tickets using funding and other resources.

In the late 1940s, the U.S. government worked covertly to ensure that the Communists didn’t win the elections and take power in France and Italy. That doesn’t sound good if being taught about in an early twenty-first century classroom but the world is a lot better off as a result. Presumably, that isn’t going to happen in this case.

Egypt will be holding parliamentary elections on November 28. There are some parallels with Tunisia—united Islamists; divided leftists, radical nationalists, and moderates — but in Egypt the Islamist vote level looks to be around 30 to 40 percent. There is little doubt that Islamists would emerge as the single largest party there.

But the military has just pushed through an agreement that many political parties have signed though it angered a lot of their members. According to the plan, after elections for the People’s Assembly, the lower house of parliament, and the Shura Council, the upper house, the two would choose a committee to draft a new constitution between April 2012 and April 2013. Only afterward would a presidential election be held, which means the military junta would continue to hold executive authority.

Meanwhile, the Syrian opposition has formed a Turkey-based (note the connection) Syrian National Council headed by Burhan Ghalioun, who is an academic who lives in Paris. Members include Mohammed Riyad al-Shaqfa of the Muslim Brotherhood The 29-member leadership is described as including the following: six from Local Coordination Committees, five Brotherhood and tribal representatives, four from the Damascus Declaration and four for Ghalioun‘s liberal group, five independents, four Kurds, and a Christian, he said.

This is a measure of the Brotherhood’s far weaker status in Syria as compared to Egypt. The proportionally low representation of Christians is presumably related to that group’s tendency to support the regime due to fear of the Islamists. The Kurds have not been enthusiastic about this new council because they believe the Muslim Brotherhood has become too powerful — perhaps they know about hidden Islamists disguised among the other members? — and worry about Arab nationalists overwhelming them.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Leon Panetta Echos Obama's Anti-Israel Disinformation Campaign

Not every anti-Israel step the Obama administration takes is reflected by policy.  For every "start negotiations with the 1949 Armistice lines" there is disinformation, a falsification of history spewed out by the administration.  The latest example of this falsification of history was presented tonight by new Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.



On his way to meetings with Israeli and Egyptian officials, Panetta warned that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.

In a blunt assessment made as he was traveling to Israel, Panetta said the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East makes it critical for the Israelis to find ways to communicate with other nations in the region in order to have stability.

"There's not much question in my mind that they maintain that (military) edge," Panetta told reporters traveling with him. "But the question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength."

Panetta followed up by saying Israel risks eroding its own security if it does not reach out to its neighbors.

"It's pretty clear that at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that's what's happening," he said.

If Panetta was interested in the truth rather than just spewing more Obama administration anti-Israel rhetoric he would have mentioned that it was the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks last October, even after Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu offered to indefinitely suspend building in Judea and Samaria Communities.

Or if the new Defense Secretary didn't want to look at facts a year old, maybe he could have mentioned that today Israel accepted the quartet's proposal to resume talks with the Palestinians but the Palestinians refused until Israel made concessions to stop adding to existing communities and agreed to return to the 1949 Armistice lines. In other words, give us everything we want and maybe we will talk.  The quartet invitation asked for neither concession.

The Obama administration continues to do whatever it can to demonize Israel, when the truth tells a different story, it is the Palestinian Authority who walked away from talks and it is the Palestinian Authority who continues to reject returning to the table.  And why should they.  The United Nations may give them most of what they want without negotiating.

Western Policy on Israel-Palestinian Peacemaking Will Only Produce Humiliating Failure

By Barry Rubin

It’s truly remarkable about how international diplomacy on the Middle East, especially Israel-Palestinian issues, is so out of touch with reality. Consider the Quartet’s response to the mess at the UN. The proposal is for Israel-PA talks to start within a month, both sides to present proposals on borders and security within three months, and to reach a final agreement by the end of 2012.

This is insane. The premise here is that the PA is really eager to negotiate a compromise agreement with Israel. Everything that’s happened in the past three years—indeed the last 18 years since the Oslo agreement was signed—shows the exact opposite. The PA spent a year building its campaign for unilateral independence at the UN precisely to avoid negotiating with Israel at all.

Why then create a Western policy that is not only doomed to fail but certain to fail in the most obvious and humiliating way? The Palestinians won’t negotiate in a month, they won’t rush to present any proposals in three, and they certainly won’t reach a peace treaty in a year. It looks like the PA will reject the whole proposal—a step for which they will pay no penalty but in fact will get more rewards and concessions, and thus will be encouraged to ignore the West even more.

The dumbest possible thing to do is to put a strict time limit on talks when your spoiled and rejectionist “client” doesn’t want to cooperate. The outcome will make the PA look very bad but “fortunately” the media and Western governments won’t point that out. Instead, the PA will run out the one-year deadline, then complain that Israel is at fault and doesn’t really want peace. and then urge speedy Western concessions to the PA and pressures on Israel.

Could anything possibly be more predictable? Perhaps the only possible explanation is that the U.S. government, UN, and EU (I doubt the Russians do so) believe their own propaganda. They really think the PA can’t wait to make a deal if only Israel is forced to negotiate and some more concessions are offer. Haven’t they learned anything?

In addition, perhaps in a time when claimed victimhood is the only measure of what is just, morale, and proper for foreign policy, the Western governments can’t get out of the rut of seeing the Palestinians only as victims. This requires the West to “help” them escape victimhood as fast as possible. Instead, the Palestinian leadership’s goal is the “old-fashioned” concept of total victory and turning their adversaries into total victims.

They don’t want to cease being “victims”; they want to start being conquerers. Consequently, the Western governments think the Palestinians are in a hurry to improve their lot while, in fact, they are patient in seeking instead to grind Israel into the dust.

Meanwhile, veteran Fatah leader Abbas Zaki has openly explained that the whole UN gambit is an effort to get an independent state as a step toward wiping Israel off the map. If Western journalists, experts, government official, and various “peacemakers” understood how this truly represents the Palestinian position a lot of money, time, and lives would be saved.

Why Most of The Mass Media Can’t Report Honestly on Israel—Or Other Middle East Issues

By Barry Rubin

Underlying any other factor regarding attitudes toward Israel in the Media-University-Government (MUG) complex is the programmatic and ideological problem faced in honestly understanding and explaining Israel’s behavior.

To report truthfully would require comprehending and communicating the following two paragraphs:

–Most Israelis believe, on the basis of their experience during the 1990s’ Oslo era and with the “peace process” generally, that Palestinian leaders cannot and will not make peace, and that most Arabs and Muslims still want to destroy Israel. As a result, they explain, past Israeli concessions have made Israel’s situation worse, risks to show that Israel wants peace have not persuaded onlookers, withdrawals from territory have only led to that territory being used to launch attacks on Israel.

–In justifying their stance, Israelis cite the extremism of Iran; the advances of Hamas and Hizballah; the growing radicalism and Islamist influence in the Egyptian revolution, and other such factors. In addition, they worry that the Obama Administration policy is undermining Israel and enabling a growing extremism in the region. This is a prevailing viewpoint across the political spectrum.

I could have chosen to make additional points but this shows the main factors. Since the Israeli argument is so cogent and backed by facts and observable realities, it would be dangerously persuasive to those who actually get to hear it.

Instead, the muggers of MUG must insist:

–Peace would be easily and quickly obtained if not for Israel’s policies.

–Settlements and not Arab/Muslim positions are the factor preventing peace, even though it could be pointed out that if the Palestinians made peace all the settlements on their territory would be removed.

–If Israel only had a different government the peace process would rapidly advance.

–Obama and his supporters want to save Israel in spite of itself and they, not Israel’ own leadership, knows what’s best for the country.

–Israelis “know” that Obama is right which is why public opinion polls, statements, and evidence to the contrary is suppressed or spun away. American Jews can support anti-Israel policies in the firm belief that they are really “pro-Israel” policies.

–They have only replaced demonizing the “other” with romanticizing the “other.” Never underestimate the importance of ignorance or of its common form—believing that other people think and act just like themselves. The “great experts” really know very little about the issues. (I could give you a long and amusing list on that point.)

–It is far more pleasant to believe that conflict can be made to disappear, hatreds quenched. If they are all our fault than we can easily fix them.

(No sooner did I write this that up pops a great example of the genre! It’s all Israel’s fault, Netanyahu never showed he wanted peace, blah, blah, blah.)

Or, in short, “Why do they hate us?” because we’ve behaved so badly but we can fix it by behaving properly.

Consequently, the systematic misrepresentation isn’t because these people are mean or that they hate Israel as such (well, actually, a lot of academics but relatively few journalists or government officials do) but because their worldview and political line–including 100 percent support for Obama–requires it.

Equally, their systematic view that revolutionary Islamism isn’t a real threat but just a marginal movement of those who misunderstand Islam and want to hijack it, requires it. Equally, their systematic view that to portray certain peoples as hardline, intransigent, “irrational,” etc., is a form of racism and Islamophobia.

I constantly receive letters from Iranians, Turks, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Syrians about their despair at losing their country, being oppressed, or seeing so much bloodshed in their struggle for democracy and to avoid being crushed by Islamist or radical nationalist dictatorships.

Genuinely moderate Muslims in the West have similar complaints and experiences. One case that typifies many is of a courageous man who is shunned by the politicians, virtually barred from the two mosques in his small city, and sees those who threaten him being praised in the media and feted by local politicians.

These people often have similar symptoms. They are depressed, often closed to tears, deeply frustrated and bewildered. What makes their lot even more bitter is the lack of sympathy for the Western MUG that praises their enemies (and all of ours) at the same time. They, too, are victims of the same syndrome that Israel suffers from.

One of the worst things in life is for someone to wake up and discover he’s been supporting evil. Indeed, not only an evil in the abstract but forces and ideas that threaten his own freedom and happiness. A lot of people in the West have already woken up but many more need to do so.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

Give the Mid East Status Quo Some Respect: All We Are Saying Is Don’t Make Things Worse

By Barry Rubin

Many people are obviously and understandably frustrated that Israel is so badly treated by the Mug-gers (media, university, and government) complex in much of the Western world. One can fume endlessly against their behavior (double standards, unfair, correct falsified history) but that accomplishes nothing.

So the immediate alternative is to say what is needed is creative new ideas, with the assumption that these ideas will solve the problem or at least make things better. This is logical and fits many other situations but it usually doesn’t apply to Israel’s case. Why not?

The assumption is that if good actions are taken then they will be recognized and rewarded. If good things are said, they will be reported and praised in a meaningful way. But while Israel should always do and say the best things this mechanism doesn’t work. The good actions are ignored or reinterpreted; the good statements are just ignored.

And so the eternal last bastion of those who unintentionally make Israel’s situation harder and the Middle East worse is to say: Why don’t you propose something positive? What’s the alternative? The status quo is unsustainable!

Of course, all status quos are unsustainable in a sense since change is inevitable. But sometimes the status quo deserves to be kept around for a while until something better comes along or can be made to happen. The best alternative of all is not to make things worse than they already are. As for the cliché that the status quo is unsustainable, .that usually followed by a plan that would make for a status quo even more unsustainable and negative.

There is a one-word description for the idea of the unsustainable status quo: defeatism. Mind you, I don’t mean that nothing should change and that one’s policy should be that of mindless reactionary intransigence. But one can also make one’s own strategy better rather than switching to another one.

The implication of an unsustainable status quo is that things are so bad that you better jump off the sinking ship into shark-infested waters before it is too late. It might be better to mobilize the crew, start pumping out the water, and steer a good course.

Consider past examples of the “status quo is unsustainable” nonsense:

• The status quo is unsustainable so we must withdraw immediately from south Lebanon.

• The status quo is unsustainable so we must have the Oslo accords.

• The status quo is unsustainable so we must withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

And what has this done but produce what we are now called an “unsustainable” status quo” as opposed to all of those previous unsustainable situations of the past six decades.

Another thing left out by the unsustainable status quo school is to assume that any change must focus on making more concessions. One could alter the status quo, for example, by showing more strength and by inflicting higher costs on adversaries and sabotaging hostile acts. One can also be creative about defending oneself.

On top of all this, however, Israel has special problems. Here are three examples:

Turkey: In trying to deal with the current friction with Turkey, Israel’s government proposed that it express regrets about defending itself during the Gaza flotilla, not the defense but the resulting loss of life among Turkish jihadists come to create a confrontation. It offered to make donations to a humanitarian fund for the relatives of those killed.

The Turkish government responded that only a full apology, the payment of compensation (an admission of wrong and based on demands rather than the donors judgment), and an immediate end of the Gaza blockade. The Turkish demand was ironic coming immediately after a UN commission declaring the blockade is legal.

So despite trying creative ways to end the conflict, Israeli officials could do nothing. Why? Because for its own reasons the Turkish regime doesn’t want to resolve the conflict. All Israel can do is to show its respect for the Turkish people and nation along with willingness to be flexible if the other side is reasonable.

Egypt: What is going to be determining the Egypt-Israel relationship in future is not Israeli actions or words since radical nationalists and Islamists in Turkey—even relative moderates—are so hostile. Israel’s creative alternative is to try to get along with the military junta and to avoid offending reasonable Egyptian pride and legitimate Egyptian rights. Once an elected government takes over, it isn’t going to be easy.

No verbal formula, no Israeli action will make the country popular among revolutionary Islamists and radical nationalists. This is different from normal international relations, where countries can make alterations in their words or policies to get credit for them and sooth disputes. That’s a point many in the West simply don’t understand.

Palestinians: What’s Israel to do on this issue? How about withdrawing from the Gaza Strip to show its good intentions? No, did that. Letting a couple of hundred thousand Palestinians return and establish their own government? Been there, done that. Letting them have guns and lots of money? Check. Offering, on almost a daily basis, to negotiate without conditions; to accept an independent Palestinian state; to return basically to the 1967 borders with some alterations and swaps? Ooops, done that, too.

And if after all that Western leaders and writers can still say that Israel hasn’t proven that it wants peace will the next change in the status quo change that? Of course, if Israel elected a left-of-center prime minister, the world would say nice things for a while even if they had the same basic policy and said the same words as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does. Yet how long will that last? Don’t believe me? Three words: Rabin, Peres, Barak.

An outside observer who doesn’t understand any of this or who hasn’t been following events would think that obviously Israel can and should do more for peace. Let me put it this way: Why should we risk our lives just because you haven’t been paying attention?

Precisely at this moment I read an op-ed by a well-intentioned law professor who points out a “positive” aspect of Palestinian statehood. If Palestine becomes an internationally recognized state, it will be responsible—he explains—for actions taken by any group on its soil, say for example if a Palestinian group crossed the border and attacked Israel, killing Israeli civilians.

Professor, please note that by that standard Israel has no problem with Lebanon, for example, a country from which terrorists have often attacked Israel. Oh, by the way, the terrorists are now governing that country. Also, once Palestine becomes a country it is more likely that terrorists will attack Israel from its territory, Israel will retaliate, and the state of Palestine will go to the UN, where the General Assembly will then agree that Israel is the aggressor.

And as a sovereign state it is free to go to Egypt or other Arab or Muslim-majority states, import weapons and even ask for military advisors. So when Israel retaliates, it is better-armed and more likely to inflict casualties on Israeli forces. If foreign advisors are killed, that country may declare the death of its citizens to be an act of war by Israel (as Turkey’s prime minister has done regarding the Gaza flotilla clash). Or the government of Palestine can ask other countries to rush in forces and weapons to fight the Israeli “aggression.”

Please, all you professors and “experts” and politicians and journalists out there: Consider the consequences of your schemes on the real world. Before you criticize Israeli leaders as fools who don’t know what’s good for their people or Israelis in general as evil and short-sighted people who don’t know what’s good for themselves, it’s a good idea to understand the situation they face and the experience they have lived through.

So let me say something nice about the status quo. Given the alternatives, Israel is relatively secure and prosperous. When you are the stronger party who is benefiting more, you can afford to wait until the other side makes you an offer so that changing the status quo would benefit you even more. Israel is not the—supposedly—desperate party that—supposedly—suffers from “occupation,” and that groans under the yoke of settlements—though if it makes a peace deal these will be dismantled.

The new idea needed at a time when the regional situation is deteriorating badly because of external factors is how better to defend yourself. There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes contacts going on with the Palestinian Authority and others to ease the situation as much as possible, including the promotion of Palestinian prosperity.

Winston Churchill knew something about real-world politics and “unsustainable” status quo situations. He was, after all, prime minister at a time when the Nazis ruled virtually all of Europe and German planes nightly bombed British cities.



Asked once what it was like to be ninety. Terrible, he said, but consider the alternative! What about democracy? The worst of all political systems, Churchill replied, except for all of the others.

So I’m all for creativity and new ideas, as well as flexibility, but anyone who doesn’t understand Israel’s special situation and history in that regard understands nothing. There’s a reason why every concession, risk, and new idea Israel tries out doesn’t create a “sustainable status quo” and that reason is: the fault does not lie with Israel.

Finally, if the status quo is so horrible, say, for the Palestinians then let them make a deal for a stable, two-state solution peace with Israel to change the situation rather than public relations' campaigns at the UN and patiently waiting another few generations in the hope that violence, martyrs, intransigence, and an Arab or Islamist war against Israel to bring them total victory. .

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com



.

The Rise and Fall of Rick Perry->And The Lid Teaches His Friend Jazz The Facts About Israel

Participating as a guest on the Rick Moran show is a guilty pleasure, and last night's show was probably one of the most enjoyable ever.  Rick, who is an editor at both PJM, American Thinker and runs his own blog Right Wing Nut House is very masterful at getting his guest to think and interact and last night the interaction between Stephen Green the famous Vodkapundit, my good friend Jazz Shaw who blogs at the Hot Air Green Room and myself was pretty spirited.   Make sure you listen to the last segment where we discuss the Middle East.  For those of you who don't know both Jazz and me, we agree 95% of the time, that 5% is mostly comprised of the Middle East. While Jazz will probably still disagree, I didn't argue with Jazz's opinions but the facts that he based his opinions on.

(if you cannot see media player below Please Click Here)

Those Who Are Always Wrong About the Middle East Never Lose A Gram of Arrogance or Moment of Sleep Over the Tragedies They Create

By Barry Rubin

On the occasion of your supporting Palestinian unilateral independence despite the dangers this presents for Israel while simultaneously criticizing Israel for not giving massive concessions in exchange for nothing. On the occasion of the world groveling before Mahmoud Abbas, a ruler of a mere one million people who is in partnership with an explicity genocidal terrorist group, is dependent on Western hand-out, refuses to negotiate or compromise, and has cancelled elections at a time when democracy is supposedly the big thing in the Middle East.

On the occasion of your ignoring the fact that Turkey is ruled by an Islamist party engaged in massive repression and the transformation of the country into a dictatorship, holding that regime up as a model for other Muslim-majority states as it arrests dissidents on a massive scale and keeps them under lock and key while threatening war with Israel. The U.S. government chooses this regime as its co-director in the most important new international counter-terrorist initiative and as its manager of the political transition in Syria.

On the occasion of your whitewashing revolutionary Islamism andglorifying anti-Western forces that will yield a harvest of bloodshed and misery in future.

And most of all on the occasion of your ridiculing, censoring, or ignoring far more accurate assessments of the situation.

Here’s the record

1970s

• You were wrong about Iran’s revolution.

• You were wrong about Saddam not invading Iran.

1980s

• You were wrong about Saddam becoming moderate and wrong about him invading Kuwait.

1990s

• You were wrong about the 1990s peace process (me, too, but I learned real fast in 2000).

• You were wrong about the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

• You were wrong about the promise that you’d support Israel if it took risks for peace and then things got bad.

Early 2000s

• You were wrong about the rise of a stealth Islamist regime in Turkey.

• You were wrong about Islamist terrorists attacking America (ridiculing the idea before September 11)

• You were wrong about Iran’s nuclear program (during the initial years, you said it wasn’t happening when Israel was warning about it).

You were wrong about letting Hamas participate in the Palestinian election even though it didn’t qualify.

• You were wrong in thinking Fatah would win the Palestinian election.

• You were wrong in not supporting moderate force in Lebanon and strenuously opposing the power of the Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance there.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against Israel.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against the United States.

Obama Era

• You were wrong about the Egyptian revolution.

• You were wrong about Turkey (being Islamist).

• You were wrong about Iran again (engagement).

• You were wrong about Syria (being winnable from Iran).

• You were wrong about Lebanon (not being taken over by Iran, Syria, Hizballah).

• You were wrong about Obama (sorry, I only get 800 words total here).

• You were wrong about Israel, (a country you never understand).

• You were wrong about Islamism (understanding what it’s all about—revolution, not hurt feelings).

• You were wrong about Pakistan (helping in a war against terrorism when it sponsors terrorism).

• You were wrong about Obama’s policy in the Middle East making America popular there.

• You were wrong about flattering Islamists into becoming moderate.

• You were wrong about the whole settlement freeze mess (including the wrong claim that it would win moderate gestures from the Arab world).

• You were wrong about throwing a tantrum regarding east Jerusalem construction which you’d already agreed was okay to continue.

• You were wrong in not throwing a tantrum about the Turkish regime’s sponsoring terrorists on the Gaza flotilla, sabotaging sanctions on Iran, an creating a virtual state of war with Israel.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Taliban in Afghan politics.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics (saying the United States had no objection to its being in government without anyone even askin).

• You were wrong about moving away from Israel making Arabs and Muslims more moderate and pro-American.

• You were wrong to waste almost a year by not dealing with the Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence strategy.

• You were wrong in sabotaging any possibility of America becoming more energy independence.

• You were wrong in not pressuring the Palestinian Authority to negotiate seriously with Israel.

• You were wrong in not giving Israel strong support when it has faced broken agreements, a massive terrorist onslaught, and the rejection of peace in response to its concessions.

That’s just a partial list.

And now you want Israel to risk its future existence on the basis of your advice, leaving aside also the fact that you’ve never confessed error, rethought the basis of these mistakes, and then formed an alternative policy and worldview?

You dare to suggest that you know better the interests of Israel and how it will survive than its people, voters, and leaders? And yet you are ignorant about Israel itself, its experiences in the last two decades, and the situation it faces!

Then your smug media, your arrogant false experts, call us dummies and ridicule our arguments—acts and arguments you don’t dare to confront directly in serious debate? We’re supposed to be impressed? Persuaded? Ashamed? Americans in general and Jews in particular are supposed to ignore the people who have actually lived the experience, know the facts, fought the wars, and taken the risks?

And besides, what about the people of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran who are horrified by their current governments yet who can expect no real help or understanding from you. How about Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whose strategic plight you ignore. How about the people of Egypt and very possibly Libya and Tunisia who may be facing a tidal wave of repression, economic disaster, and shattered hopes partly due to your mistakes?

The answer is, “No, thanks.”

All I can add is, Take it away, Bob Dylan:

“I just want you to know
I can see through your masks….
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy….
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher….”

–Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

Clinton's a Liar! Netanyahu Has Agreed To More Concessions Than Rabin Ever Did

Former President Bill Clinton said some pretty outlandish things about the Middle East this week.

During the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, Clinton said the reluctance of Netanyahu to accept peace treaty terms reached at Camp David in 2000 is a main reason for a lack of peace today, The Jerusalem Post reported.

"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [former Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's stroke," Clinton said Thursday.

Granted, I have never been President of the United States, nor have I ever wasted a good Cuban Cigar the way Clinton did, but I would suggest the fact that Yassar Arafat walked out of the 2000 talks have more do do with the lack of peace than Bibi Netanyahu rejecting terms that were never part of a consummated peace treaty.

As for Sharon, the former president is totally deluded. The withdrawal from Gaza was in 2005, five years after Clinton left the payroll of the United States and placed himself on the payroll of Dubai and Saudi Arabia.Soon after disengagement Hamas started sending missiles into Israeli Territory, if Sharon wasn't in his comatose state at the time he would have turned Gaza into a parking lot and then re-occupied it.

Clinton did work directly with Rabin.  He forgets though that Rabin was a pragmatic man, who negotiated with (and even shook hands with) a terrorist  simply to prevent further bloodshed of innocent Israelis, but he wasn't willing to negotiate away Israel's security or her heritage.

Since his death, the myth of Rabin's peacemaking expanded.  While it is true that he was the Prime Minister who began the "Oslo Process, " it is also true that his final vision for the process was to the right of supposedly "hawkish" Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Rabin did not support the creation of a Palestinian State, while Netanyahu does. Like Bibi, Rabin did not support the division of Jerusalem. Rabin was not the "sacrifice everything for the sake of peace" type that the Labor Party Premiers who came after him. The truth is despite what Bill Clinton Says, Yitzchak Rabin was the last prime minister of Israel that did not support the creation of a Palestinian State.

Nine days before he died, Rabin delivered a speech to the Knesset that laid out his vision for the future of Israel and the disputed territories, including:

• No Palestinian State: "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."

• No return to '67 borders: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."

• Control of Jordan Valley: "The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term."

• Gush Katif as model: "The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif."

• All settlements remain intact during interim period: "I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."

• United Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

• (During interim period) "The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.

(The entire speech can be found here)

None of this is done to denigrate the memory of the Israeli PM who was slaughtered 15 years ago, its more to show the true nature of the media and world leaders. They have taken upon themselves to recreate Rabin into something he was not. For many years, Rabin’s legacy was defined by the dreams of  the peace process that he was engaged in with the Palestinians at the time of his murder. Whether this was what he would have wanted has been debated by his relatives and confidants, some of whom were aware of his growing  doubts about the intentions of Yasser Arafat, who was already sabotaging the diplomatic process by ordering terrorist attacks before, during and after the time of Rabin’s assassination.

Bill Clinton have known that at the time of his death Rabin was ready to bail on the Oslo process.

Last year Rabin's daughter Dalia wrote in an Israeli magazine :

"Many people who were close to father told me that on the eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets and that Arafat wasn't delivering the goods.

Father after all wasn't a blind man running forward without thought. I don't rule out the possibility that he considered also doing a reverse on our side.

After all he was someone for whom the security of the state was sacrosanct."

None of this is meant to disparage the memory of Rabin. Indeed, understanding that he was not a blind peace-maker like some of the Prime Ministers who followed him such as Peres, Barak and Olmert, enhances his memory. The Oslo process that he began, came to be roundly criticized as it lead to a deadly violence including the second intifada, while at the same time consolidating the power of the terrorist Arafat. But who can honestly know what would have happened if a crazy zealot didn't strike him down 16 years ago. Oslo might have been over long before the intifada and Arafat might have been sent back to his hiding place in Tripoli.

One thing is for sure, the same people who like Bill Clinton, created the revered image of Yitzchak Rabin vilify Benyamin Netanyahu even though Bibi's positions more moderate than the great peace maker Rabin.

Its very interesting the way history can work if Yitzhak Rabin was alive in 2000 that near deal that Yassir Arafat walked out on would have never happened. Yet Bill Clinton attacks Netanuyahu for having a more moderate position.  His criticism was simply a big political lie, unless of course it depends what is-is.

The Sharia Law Measuring Scale, Turkey or Iran, and the Israeli Peace Initiative Contest

By Barry Rubin

1. One of my readers remarked that what we need to study now is the use of fifth columns to subvert and overthrow countries rather than the 1940-era conventional warfare blitzkrieg. Actually, and this was well-known at the time, the Germans used a very sophisticated strategy of ideological and institutional subversion. It is surprising how much this has been forgotten. Political parties and militias were set up or subsidized; newspapers bought up; German minorities organized. If any of you are interested in this I will provide examples in future, some of which I described (using U.S. intelligence archives) in my book, Istanbul Intrigues.

2. Turkey is now going to sell Egypt both unmanned aircraft and swift patrol boats. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, since both are U.S. clients and, according to the Obama Administration, allies. But this is something to watch in the future. Remember that the relatively moderate military commanders in both countries are on their way out and will be replaced by ideologically motivated (or opportunist) officers who will attack whatever they’re told. With excitable, reckless, and anti-American Recep Edrogan running Turkey and excitable, reckless, and anti-American Amr Moussa perhaps soon to be Egypt’s president, old American friends may soon be attacking other old American friends, or even U.S. forces.

Have you noticed that its increasingly difficult to distinguish between remarks about Israel by Erdogan and those by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

3. I like U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen. He gets it. And he has to because his forces have the mission of fighting future wars and threats created by mistaken White House policies. Never forget that the official Quardennial Review of U.S . military plans, 92 pages of Politically Correct pap, doesn’t really mention Islamism, terrorism, Iran, and other real-world threats. Mullen’s 3.5 page letter at the end deals with all the real issues.

Now Mullen has had to say something pretty amazing. In Senate testimony he reported that “the Haqqani [terrorist[ network… acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.” Imagine: America’s highest military officer explains that the intelligence agency of a country receiving massive U.S. aid runs a Taliban-linked terrorist group that, on September 13, attacked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan. Twenty-five people died.

Can you imagine the uproar this should cause in any normal circumstance? There would be demands for congressional inquiries, front-page stories every day, attacks on a president who could run such a policy.

Instead: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Add this to previous U.S. Defense Department warnings based on reliable intelligence:

–Iran is protecting and helping al-Qaida.

–Iran is training Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

–Iran is training and supplying training, weapons, and explosives to kill Americans in Iraq. Mullen also spoke about that. He said: “They (the Iranians) have been warned about continuing it … that if they keep killing our troops, that will not be something we will sit idly by and watch.” Um, wow, does that raise the possibility of an armed confrontation with Iran? What is the White House going to do if Iran continues killing Americans–as I’m sure they will. My prediction is that they will do nothing. You know what that kind of empty threat followed by inaction does to credibility?

–Syria is running a war against America in Iraq.

But White House policies don’t want to deal with these issues.

Congress, do you have any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Experts, any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Media, any response?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

4. Michael Ledeen has written an excellent article well-worth reading about the hunkered-down White House and its Ripley’s Believe it or Not policies. But I can’t resist adding a bit. Ledeen writes that the White house is awaiting, “The happy moment when Assad falls and Obama takes credit for it and Erdogan calls the White House to get his orders.”

Alas, most people in the region don’t think that Erdogan will be calling the White House to get his orders–the idea of anyone ordering around Erdogan doesn’t fit with his personality–but with Erdogan telling Obama how he’s arranged a great interim government in which the Muslim Brotherhood has all-too-much power.

5. Libya’s new Western-installed leader first announced that Sharia will be “the main source” for Libyan law in future, then a week later met with Obama who praised him as a great guy. A brief guide is in order here about how Muslim-majority countries do this sort of thing:

Option 1: Secular, based on Western law. You know, like Turkey used to be.

Option 2: Sharia is “a source” of legislation, not too bad, like Egypt used to be.

Option 3: Sharia is “the main source” of legislation. Uh-oh.

Option 4: Sharia is “the sole source” of legislation.” Is that a chador you’re wearing or are you just glad to see me? (Yes, I know that it doesnt make sense but this take-off of the famous Mae West line is sort of funny, I hope.)

Now, Turkey is moving from 1 through 2 and perhaps eventually to 3. Egypt from 2 to 3 and perhaps eventually to 4. Libya is starting off at 3. Iran and the Gaza Strip are at 4 with a bullet. That last point is record industry slang for a song headed up the charts. In this case it means, literally, a bullet in your head if you step out of line. Some time next year remind me to do a chart of where every country is at. One thing is for sure: they’re all headed in the same general direction.

6. Here’s the problem with the international community and with the “peace process.” The Paletinian Authority demands full UN membership without doing anything to deserve it, as an alternative to negotiations with Israel. The United States opposes; almost every other country supports. So France comes up with a compromise: Make them a non-member state, in other words moving them up a level. But the problem is not having Palestine as a UN member so much as it is having Palestine as a state, which can do whatever it wants in terms of foreign alliances, buying arms, inviting in foreign troops or advisors, and condemning Israel as occupier and aggressor if it defends itself from cross-border attacks or doesn’t leave all claimed Palestinian territory immediately.

So this is how it works: You don’t give the Palestinians everything they want as a unilateral concession; you just give them half of what they want as a unilateral concessions. Saving the rest as a unilateral concession for the next time they make a demand.

7. The great peace initiative contest! What can Israel give to prove it wants peace and isn’t sabotaging a diplomatic resolution? Come up with ideas. Important rule: Israel cannot ask for anything in exchange because if it does then the Palestinians will reject it and we are back where we began.

Warning: failure to come up with an entry means you are a right-wing extremist who opposes peace and is clinging on to an untenable status quo. Only unilateral concessions will be considered! In case of near-duplicate entries the proposal in which Israel gives up more in exchange for nothing will be judged the winner.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

I Hate Israel! I Hate America! I’m a Muslim! I’ve Got it All! Let Me Be Your Leader!

Scene: A nightclub in Morocco.

Abdul: “I’m sorry, sir, this is a private room.”
German official [from the Nazi-controlled DeutschBank]: “You dare not keep me out of here!”
Rick: “Your cash is good at the bar.”
German official: “What! Do you know who I am?”
Rick: ‘I do. You’re lucky the bar’s open to you.”

–“Casablanca,” (1942)

By Barry Rubin

First it was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution.

Hey, he said in effect, Yes, I’m a Persian, Yes, I’m a Shia, but I hate Israel and want to destroy it! And besides we’re all Muslims. So let me lead the Middle East. I know the way to kick the Americans out of the Middle East, too. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iran was popular for a while. But the Arabs and Sunni eventually found other heroes, and some became frightened of Iran’s power.

Then there was Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi dictatorship.

Hey, he said in effect, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am a Godless atheist who kills believers. But I not only hate the Americans and Israelis but I also hate the Shia and those Shia heretics. So let me lead the Middle East. I know how to defeat them! By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Iraq was popular for a while. But then he led Iraq to disaster, and was defeated and then killed.

Then there was Usama bin Ladin.

He said, I am an Arab, I am a Sunni. True, I am no trained cleric. But I hate the Americans. What? Oh, yes, forgot about that one. I also hate Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! So let me lead the Middle East. By force! And the blood spilled and behold, Usama bin Ladin was popular for a while. And then he was killed, too.

Then there was Muhammad Fadlallah of Hizballah.

He said in effect, I am an Arab, though a Shia. I am a cleric! I have it all. I hate the Americans (though many of them don’t even realize it) and Israel. I know how to defeat them! By force! See, I won the war! Oops! Spoke too soon, heh! And the blood spilled and Fadlallah was popular for a while, Lebanon was in ruins though, still, Hizballah seized state power there. But he sided with Iran and the Syrian dictatorship so the Sunni Arabs waxed wroth.

And now, there is Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood and they can say: We’re Arab! We’re Muslim! We’ve got it all, including the most respected Sunni Islamist in the world as our guide! We don’t need no stinkin’ Persians or Shias! (Film reference: “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”)

Soon we will take over Egypt. We hate the Americans and Israel. We know how to defeat them! By force! True, Egypt lost in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and, ultimately, in 1973, too. Still, a few Allahu Akhbar’s will take care of that. True, if we were aggressive we might lose all that U.S. aid but what’s money compared to the Will of Allah and the prospect of heaven? Besides, America is collapsing; Israel is losing its support—the more concessions, the more aggressive we will be. And we have our Hamas friends.

There is something different this time, however, since there is still another savior of Islam in the field: Turkish President Recep Erdogan. He says: True, I’m not an Arab but I’m Sunni. And I hate the United States, though I don’t say so in public. And I know how to defeat them: by force! Let’s go and fight! And the Arab League leaders erupt in cheers and chant his name. Then the Muslim Brotherhood discovers he is too subtle for them, he wants to keep the Islamism secret until all power is seized and they disagree with that strategy.

Still, Erdogan is making his leadership bid. Here he is at the Arab League foreign minister’s meeting: “It is time for us to take responsibility for our common future….We are entitled to meet the righteous demands of our people using any legitimate means.”

Note two phrases: “our common future” means forget about Arab nationalism. All us Muslims got to stick together. Seeing Turks as Europeans is an obsolete notion for him. Ninety years of secular, Western-oriented nationalism is over.

“Any legitimate means” means the right and need to go to war against Israel. Of course, the U.S. government still acts as if nothing has changed, that Turkey is not just a reliable ally but an especially honored role model, star ally.

Incidentally, don’t waste any time on the lies and denials, here’s Turkey’s foreign minister explaining the new policy of Turkey being leader of the Middle East as he secretly expressed it to a meeting of high-level ruling party officials and as made available to us by Wikileaks.

And let’s not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Syria’s Assad dynasty; and, of course, Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasir Arafat. All of them also had the same basic program. All of them failed miserably and left their people worse off.

I keep thinking of George Costanza of “Seinfeld” explaining, “You think sickness like that grows on trees? Nobody is sicker than me, nobody….I’m disturbed! I’m depressed! I’m inadequate! I got it all!”

There were some others—King Abdallah of Jordan; Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt; Bashir al-Gemayel of Lebanon. They were all murdered, though, by other locals. King Hussein of Jordan isn’t around any more. So let’s see, demagogues who back terrorism and violence, hate the West, and refuse compromise fail miserably and become heroes. Moderates who want to focus on economic progress (including here Husni Mubarak) and peacemaking are jeered and killed or deposed by their own people.

Might there be a pattern here?

Meanwhile, like Bart Simpson, President Barack Obama and other Western leaders keep writing on the blackboard one hundred times: Now, if only we prove to them we’re their friends they’ll like us.

Maybe, say the Europeans, if we recognize a Palestinian state they will like us! Maybe if we say enough things about Muslims they’ll like us! After all, it is all our fault, or Israel’s fault, that they are angry. They couldn’t possibly want a revolution based on a radical ideology followed by a repressive dictatorship because that’s what they really want!

Reminds me of the lyrics to “I Hope I Get It” from “A Chorus Line”:

“I think I’ve got it.
I think I’ve got it.
I knew he liked me all the time.
Still it isn’t over….What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?”

In other words, Western leaders aren’t protecting their interests. They’re auditioning for the role of Middle East hero against those who can say they are a Muslim or even an Arab. Guess who’s going to get the part? Are they going to persuade the producers that they hate Israel more than Qaradawi or Erdogan or Fadlallah? That they will promote Islam as well as people like that? That they will kick the West (that is, themselves) out of the Middle East?

In contrast, a Gulf Arab, who hates all this stuff, gave the alternative in a private conversation: “I don’t want an American president to behave like an Arab. I want an American president who will behave like an American.”

The United States and Europe should be preparing to audition for a very different part in a very different production. How about “Casablanca” or “High Noon”? Obama might be better advised (and it would be less of a stretch) to go out for the Noel Coward role for “In Which We Serve.” Or even “The Four Feathers” in which a coward finds his inner hero.(Warning: Watch only the 1939 version.) Funny, they don’t make films like those any more.

They better start making politicians like that very soon!

The good news: If you are reading this you have already learned. Explain it to everyone you know.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest 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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com