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 

It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Threaten Her In Danger

"…never send to know for whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee."

--John Dunne

By Barry Rubin

Rome, Italy

I’m standing on the edge of the Roman Forum, by the Arch of Titus. This is the marble structure built by the Empire to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple about 1941 years ago. Legionnaires are shown carrying off the Menorah and other items from the sanctuary. The inhabitants are sold into slavery, The Jews are finished.

Well, not really. Today, the great empire has long vanished and Israel is not just a living country but by every social, economic, and security standard a successful country.

In the late 1960s, more than 40 years ago, the Palestinian and Arab leaders were certain that Israel would not survive. The fact that they were completely wrong has not prevented a whole new rash of contemporary speculations.


The PLO view, shared by virtually all Arabs at the time, was very clearly defined. The two main points boil down to the following. First, Israel would not survive because there was no real basis for such a state and people. Second, the Arabs would destroy it using various strategies.


Here is the ultimate quote from Yasir Arafat in1968—that’s 43 years ago--on why this would work:

Terrorism would “create and maintain an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel….The Israelis have one great fear, the fear of casualties….”

The PLO's attacks would "prevent immigration and encourage emigration....to destroy tourism, to prevent immigrants becoming attached to the land, to weaken the Israeli economy and to divert the greater part of it to security requirements.” This would "inevitably" prevent Israel's consolidation and bring its disintegration. The final step would be “a quick blow by the regular armies at the right moment" to finish Israel off.

All of these things failed. More immigrants came than expected and were successfully integrated. People weren’t frightened into fleeing. Casualties were absorbed and limited. The country became economically successful and militarily victorious. Thus, today Israel is stronger—far stronger—than ever.

And who were the biggest losers in this conflict? Naturally, Israel has lost a great deal, especially in lives. But the biggest losers have been the Arabs who wasted resources, lost more lives, faced repeated humiliations, and ended up with dictatorship and stagnant societies. And they will be the biggest losers if they spend the next 60 years playing the same game.

And if Arab states that were relatively united and had a superpower sponsor couldn’t destroy Israel in 60 years how are they going to do so today? With Israel outpacing its neighbors on every index of social and economic development, with so much oil money spent without really advancing Arab societies, who has the advantage today?

Remember what happened in 1948. True, all the Arab states invaded the new state of Israel But they didn’t coordinate with each other and all wanted to grab territory for themselves. With Iran and Turkey all jostling for power and leadership today, the conflict and disorder is intensified.

Yet now there is a revival of the claim—sometimes among ill-informed well-wishers, more often among antagonistic haters—that Israel might not survive. This is based partly on wishful thinking, partly on ignorance. Underlying these factors, however, is a basic disbelief that Jews are a people and can be a state.

And that reflects a lack of knowledge—often among Western Jews themselves—about Jewish history as well as a naïve acceptance of anti-Israel propaganda, claims that have proven to be false for decades.

Actually, then, the shoe is on the other foot entirely from what is being claimed. It is not Israel’s existence that is threatened but that of its adversaries and in some ways of Western Europe, too.

Its enemy neighbors and near-neighbors are about to embark on a decades’-long horrifying series of civil wars: Islamists against Arab nationalists; Sunni against Shia Muslims; economic collapse; and much more. Syria is on the verge of an inter-communal bloodbath; Egypt faces not some bright new economic dawn but a terrible reckoning. At some point the oil will run out with much of that wealth squandered. Recent discoveries even suggest that Israel itself will be a rising exporter of petroleum and natural gas.

Periodically, some radical Muslim writes that if only each Muslim would kill one Jew then Israel would vanish. High hopes are held for nuclear weapons that Iran still doesn’t have. But such schemes never get off the ground. Indeed, it is Arab nationalism that is endangered with extinction under a wave of revolutionary Islamism. By leaving the path of pragmatism for that of doctrinaire Islamism, Turkey is likely to lose the success it enjoyed for so many decades.

There is not one regime in a Muslim-majority country that should feel confident about its future; not one such state whose continued existence can be taken for granted.

In contrast, there are only two ways Israel might perhaps disappear. First, it might happen if Arabs and Muslims dropped radicalism, ideology, and bickering to concentrate on technological and economic progress for 50 years, only then turning on Israel. That would require, for example, the Palestinians quickly dropping all of their rejectionism and demands to make a compromise agreement with Israel that they had no intention of keeping.

Yet quite the opposite is happening now. It is radicalism, not pragmatic development strategies that is in control. Besides, the problem is that a focus on material development and moderate democracy would erode Arab and Muslim tempers to the point that they would no longer want to engage in such a foolish and futile life-and-death struggle, which is why the Islamists reject that approach.

The other way Israel might be wiped off the map is if its leaders heeded the advice they are getting from the West. That’s the irony of the situation. Those stubborn, stiff-necked people are not going to doom themselves by implementing the mistaken ideas told to them by Western media, experts, intellectuals, and governments who claim such policies are the road to safety.

Part of the problem here is that all too many Western intellectuals no longer believe in fighting—or even sacrificing--for your country; patriotic pride or nationalism or religion; or even the nation-state itself. Consequently, while many Arabs and Muslims don’t believe Israel can exist because of contempt for Jews and belief in the superiority of their nations and religion, many Westerners now believe in the wickedness of their countries and religion and the unviability of the national model.

In thinking about Israel, both these opposite arguments amount to the same thing. Yet they tell more about those having these ideas than about Israel.

When a European cabinet minister says his country has no distinct culture and another urges the locals to be nice to Muslims so they will reciprocate after they take over; when a European country’s counterintelligence chief .tells me his country has no future, and a quartet of professors from another remark to me over cocktails that they believe their country is finished, is it Israel that is in danger of collapse?

Who’s really facing the abyss? That doesn’t mean destruction will come to Europe’s existing states and societies but it does mean they are more likely to go than Israel is. You want to talk about demographic threats? In Europe, the majority is often having children at half the rate needed for mere replacement of the existing native population.

Yet all of this also shows why Israel is the key to understanding today’s world. Israel’s survival shows that democratic societies can fight and defeat dictators and totalitarian ideologies, Western religions do have a continuing place in Western societies and nation-states are still a viable—perhaps the most viable—way to organize many political structures.

That’s precisely why so many are working so hard to demonize and discredit Israel. If people in the West understand what Israel is and what it is doing, they will comprehend the value of those approaches and values. And if they understand how Israel is lied about and mistreated they will comprehend much wider problems with the people, ideas, and institutions governing their own lives today.

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 New York Times Only 93.3% Biased Against Israel

The New York Times is a weird bird. Owned by a family whose heritage is Jewish, it has always done what-ever it can to work against the interests of the Jewish people.  For example the progressive paper of record buried reports about the Holocaust while it was happening. Maybe the NY Times doesn't believe that Jews can suffer, or maybe they just didn't want to appear too Jewish.

Throughout the past 44 years, the Times has specialized in criticizing Israel never, as Newspapers are supposed to do, trying to be balanced.  A prime example is the month we just finished, September 2011. Daniel Goldstein of the Gloria Center kept track of all of the Op-Eds run by the paper, 15 discussed Israel, only 1 was positive, that makes the NY Times 93.3% anti-Israel for the month. 


Below is the fruit of Mr. Goldstein's research:

1) Turkey, Israel and the Flotilla - Editorial – September 2, 2011

Israel accepted the findings by the United Nations and said that it hoped to mend ties with Turkey, but it reiterated that it would not apologize. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to apologize to Turkey. American officials are going to have to keep trying with both sides. We don’t blame Israel for wondering if Turkey is keeping this conflict going to burnish its standing in the Arab world. Turkey is risking a lot, including billions in trade with Israel and its reputation as a responsible international player. Israel certainly doesn’t need to be any more isolated than it is. Israel should apologize for the deaths. And Turkey should stop upping the ante.

I’m surprised here. Yes I’m a little put off by the need to tweak Israel on the apology. But overall I’d have to say that this editorial substantially takes the Israeli side. Running Total:  Anti-Israel 0 / Pro-Israel 1
2) Israel Isolates Itself - Roger Cohen – September 6, 2011

Senior Turkish officials told me Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had raised Dogan’s fate with President Obama. But of course no U.S. president, and certainly no first-term U.S. president, would say what Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said: “The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable.” Even if there’s an American citizen killed, raising such questions about Israel is a political no-no. So it goes in the taboo-littered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy. The Palmer report, leaked to The New York Times last week, is a split-the-difference document, with the Israeli and Turkish members of the panel including notes of dissent. My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.

Cohen doesn’t note the way Turkey “raised the ante” and makes a not so subtle suggestion of inordinate Jewish influence in the political process. Running total: Anti-Israel 1 / Pro-Israel 1
3) An Israeli Case for a Palestinian State - Yossi Alpher – September 11, 2011

No Israeli leader will acquiesce in these Palestinian positions, and no bridging formula has proven workable. These negotiating gaps are, as Abbas himself acknowledged in 2009, “too wide.”Thus Abbas has turned to the United Nations not only because the Palestinian state-building enterprise in the West Bank has proved successful, but also because it is clear that Oslo-based final-status negotiations, even if they reconvene, cannot succeed in ending all claims. In this sense, it is Abbas’ intransigence on a full final status package, no less than Netanyahu’s, that has brought us to the United Nations. Yet here the two part company: Abbas appears genuinely to want progress toward a viable two-state solution, while Netanyahu’s ideology and the composition of his coalition signal intransigence.

In the run up to the Palestinian gambit at the UN, the Times ran a number of op-eds and editorial criticizing Israel for forcing the Palestinians to turn to the UN or endorsing the Palestinian move or both. It is dishonest to claim that Abbas “genuinely” wants progress. Even the recent “speed dial” story, which portrayed Abbas sympathetically, noted that the expected President Obama to get results by pressuring Netanyahu. He wants progress as long as others do the work for him. Running Total: Anti-Israel 2 / Pro-Israel 1
4) About these proposals - David Makovsky – September 11, 2011

The settlers in these areas and others outlined in Maps 1-3 will most likely have to be evacuated completely, as the alternative of remaining under Palestinian rule is both problematic and unlikely. Theoretically, the parties could pursue an alternative scenario in which non-bloc settlers were not displaced at all, but rather remained where they were under Palestinian sovereignty. On paper, this approach has surface appeal because it would eliminate the need for coercive dislocation. However, there are several reasons to be skeptical. First, virtually all of the 300,000 settlers in the West Bank moved there intending to live under Israeli, not Palestinian, sovereignty. Second, for the small number who chose to remain in a Palestinian-run West Bank, it is unclear whether they could live there harmoniously. Specifically, once Israel withdraws its military forces from non-annexed portions of the West Bank, Hamas elements and other extremists may decide to take advantage of the emergence of the fledgling state to settle longstanding scores with remaining settlers. Some have even speculated that the most ideological settlers could initiate a confrontation, which could force the Israeli military to return in order to defend them. For these and other reasons, allowing non-bloc settlers to remain in the West Bank might complicate the implementation of any peace agreement.

This is mostly informational as Makovsky looks at 3 maps of possible final settlements. There are aspects of it that I don’t like. Most notably in this third paragraph he doesn’t even mention that the Palestinians wouldn’t allow Jews in their state. Did I ever mention that in 1984 I heard Makovsky speak in Kiryat Arba? Despite my misgivings I will grade this as neutral. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 2 / Pro-Israel – 1
5) Veto a state; lose an ally - Turki al-Faisal – September 11, 2011

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region. Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Ten years after hijackers – 15 of 19 of them Saudi nationals – attacked America killing nearly 3000 innocents, a member of the Saudi royal family reminds of us of what good friends Saudis have been – by threatening to break with the United States over the issue of Palestinian statehood. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 3 / Pro-Israel – 1
6) Palestinian Statehood - Editorial – September 11, 2011

Last week, the United States made a listless effort to get Palestinians to forgo the vote in favor of new peace talks. The pitch was unpersuasive. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the Americans made no concrete proposal. “To be frank with you, they came too late,” he said. His frustration is understandable. Since President Obama took office, the only direct negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mr. Abbas lasted a mere two weeks in September 2010. Both sides share the blame with Mr. Obama and Arab leaders (we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts). But the best path to statehood remains negotiations.

Later I’ll deal with last week’s Thomas Friedman column. Friedman correctly notes that Netanyahu agreed to a freeze and Abbas barely agreed to talks before walking out. Then he blamed Netanyahu for not giving Abbas another chance. Friedman’s column, even if illogical, had the advantage of being accurate. This editorial can’t even claim to be accurate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 4 / Pro-Israel – 1
7) After the UN vote on Palestine - Jimmy Carter – September 13, 2011

The U.S. has basically withdrawn from active participation in the peace process. The Palestinians and other Arabs have interpreted U.S. policy as acquiescing on the occupation and biased against them. Declaring that they are left with no alternative, Palestinians plan to request recognition of a Palestinian state later this month in the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly. In Egypt, militants have overrun the Israeli embassy and forced the evacuation of the ambassador. With the reasonable assumptions that Palestinian statehood is widely recognized despite a U.S. veto in the Security Council, what are the options for the future?

Thus Carter recommends an international effort – led by Europe – to fulfill all the conditions that “everyone knows” will bring peace but have been rejected by Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Of course it doesn’t bother him in the slightest that “militants” attacked the Israeli embassy in Egypt violating international norms. So if the Palestinians don’t like the agreement he proposes they can attack Israel with impunity, until the terms change to their liking? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 6 / Pro-Israel – 1
9) Israel and New York’s Ninth District - Editorial – September

Some analysts — and eager Republican critics — are also claiming it was a repudiation of President Obama’s policies toward Israel. On Wednesday, an article on the Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that “in politics it is the perception that counts,” and that the Democratic loss “will be portrayed, as the outspoken former Mayor Ed Koch put it, ‘as a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under a bus with impunity.’ ” Mr. Obama has done nothing of the sort; his support for Israel has never wavered. But we fear that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will read the election as yet another reason to ignore the president’s advice and refuse to make any compromises with the Palestinians, no matter how essential for Israel’s own security.

As noted above the editorial board of the New York Times doesn’t remember that Netanyahu imposed a construction freeze. Despite that freeze that didn’t serve to get meaningful negotiations started despite political risks, President Obama continued to treat Netanyahu as the main obstacle to peace. If Netanyahu learned anything from that incident it was that he had to look out for his country first, not for empty promises or assurances.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 7 / Pro-Israel – 1
10) Ten Reasons for a European ‘Yes’ by Martti Ahtisaari and Javier Solana – September 16, 2011

The second reason for a European “yes” is that the Europeans have already invested hugely in the two-state solution that is under scrutiny, including the annual €1 billion aid to help build a functioning Palestinian state. Again, a “yes” is a reaffirmation that the project is worthwhile and can succeed. The third reason for a “yes” is simply to respond positively to Mahmoud Abbas’ state-building achievements. Failing to vote “yes” would be to respond to demands for state-building by refusing to formally acknowledge where they have got to. The fourth reason is about the Arab Spring. Anything other than a “yes” would expose Europeans to charges of double standards from both post-revolutionary governments and conservative Arab regimes (for different reasons) for failing to support rights for Palestinians while advocating them elsewhere.

I won’t subject you to the other 7. Yes there has been state-building or at least institution-building on the part of the PA. Though it is usually, Salam Fayyad, not Abbas who is credited for it. But the PA still has little functioning economy outside of foreign aid. (The hated American and Israelis, according to Jonathan Schanzer, provide nearly three quarters of the PA’s budget.) Finally as it becomes clearer that Abbas is no different from Mubarak, except perhaps in the scale of his corruption, it’s false to claim that empowering Abbas is the same thing as empowering Palestinians generally. Running Total – Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel – 1
11) Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone - Thomas L. Friedman – September 17, 2011

On Turkey, the Obama team and Mr. Netanyahu’s lawyers worked tirelessly these last two months to resolve the crisis stemming from the killing by Israeli commandos of Turkish civilians in the May 2010 Turkish aid flotilla that recklessly tried to land in Gaza. Turkey was demanding an apology. According to an exhaustive article about the talks by the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, the two sides agreed that Israel would apologize only for “operational mistakes” and the Turks would agree to not raise legal claims. Bibi then undercut his own lawyers and rejected the deal, out of national pride and fear that Mr. Lieberman would use it against him. So Turkey threw out the Israeli ambassador.

Reader Lynn pointed out that Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reported:

The Israeli official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Turks kept adding conditions for a reconciliation, raising uncertainty in Mr. Netanyahu’s government over whether they were sincere and whether they would consider the case closed even if a deal were reached.

Apparently if necessary for condemning Israel, Friedman won’t read his own newspaper. If the other party keeps adding conditions it isn’t “national pride” that would motivate Israel not to make a deal, but common sense.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 9 / Pro-Israel – 1
12) Peace Now or Never - Ehud Olmert – September 21, 2011

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence. These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

This must be a first: calling on a disgraced leader to lecture his successor. The problem, as we’ll see with Thomas Friedman’s upcoming column is that Olmert claims that all Netanyahu needs to do is to offer Abbas what Abbas has already rejected. If Abbas knows that there’s no penalty for bad faith, why would he ever agree to terms with Israel? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 10 / Pro-Israel – 1
13) Ready for Statehood - Jonas Gahr Store – September 22, 2011

So the answer to my initial question — whether the Palestinians can actually run a state — is yes. By building robust and well-functioning institutions, the Palestinians and the donor community have taken a bottom-up approach to the peace process. The final status issues — borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem — can only be settled through negotiations, which is an example of a top-down approach. In an ideal world, these two approaches should have converged. Regretfully, they haven’t. This is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

There is no acknowledgment that it is the Palestinians who refuse negotiations. I also believe that Store is overselling Palestinian accomplishments in state building. If I were feeling generous, I might have graded this one as neutral, but I’m not. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 11 / Pro-Israel 1
14) The Palestinians’ Bid - Editorial – September 22, 2011

There is plenty of blame to go around. The main responsibility right now belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace. He appears far more concerned about his own political survival than his country’s increasing isolation or the threat of renewed violence in the West Bank and all around Israel’s borders.

Likud currently is the most popular party in Israel. If elections were held today, he likely would return as head of government. In other words, his political survival is not a major concern right now. Israel’s increased isolation is a function of issues having nothing to do with the Palestinians. And, of course, it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 12 / Pro-Israel 1
15) Tangled Relationship in Jerusalem - Arthur Brisbane – September 24, 2011

The article by Max Blumenthal on Sept. 14 set off a chain of follow-up pieces by others and by Mr. Blumenthal himself, hammering away at the allegation that Ethan Bronner, the Times bureau chief, was compromised by his relationship with a public relations firm that arranged paid speaking engagements for him. A close examination of the facts leads me to conclude that the case for an actual conflict of interest is slender. But the appearance of a conflict clearly exists, and that is a problem in and of itself. The Times’s “Ethical Journalism” guidelines state that staff members “may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage.” Mr. Bronner has now severed his ties to the public relations firm. “In my view, it is all about appearances,” he told me. “I am not denying they matter. There is nothing of an actual conflict.”

Given how little care Brisbane – the public editor of the New York Times – shows for getting facts from the Middle East correct, it’s outrageous that he’s making an issue out of “appearances.” His predecessor, Clark Hoyt, accepted the charges of Ali Abuminah against Bronner uncritically; and now Brisbane has showed the same courtesy to Blumenthal. Both Abuminah and Blumenthal are anti-Israel activists whose activism should compromise their credibility. Clay Waters observes, “If Bronner truly harbors Zionist sympathies, he keeps it out of his reporting quite effectively.” Israel Matzav debunks the notion that the speakers bureau with which Bronner was affiliated was “right wing” and shows that Blumenthals time line is false. Brisbane has followed up with letters about his column, Conflicts and Appearances. All but one are unsympathetic to Bronner. (Two cover the topic in the abstract, but it is clear that they support Blumenthal.) If the New York Times removes Bronner, it will show that the New York Times has no backbone when faced with extreme anti-Israel activists.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 13 / Pro-Israel 1 16) 2 for 2, or 2 for 1? - Thomas Friedman – September 27, 2011

Given these stakes, here is what a farsighted Israeli government would say to itself: “We have so much more to lose than the Palestinians if all this collapses. So let’s go the extra mile. Abbas says he will not come to peace talks without a freeze on settlement-building. We think that is bogus. We gave him a 10-month partial freeze and he did nothing with it. But you know what? There is so much at stake here, let’s test him again. Let’s offer him a six-month total freeze on settlement-building. What is six months in the history of 5,000-year-old people? We already have 300,000 settlers in place. It is a win-win strategy that in no way imperils our security. If the Palestinians still balk, they will be the ones isolated, not us. And, if they come, who knows? Maybe we cut a deal.”

Unlike the editorial cited above, at least Friedman has the honesty to acknowledge Netanyahu’s settlement freeze. Like Ehud Olmert, Friedman believes that if the Palestinians refuse, it’s Israel’s obligation to keep the offer on the table until they say, “yes.” This is not farsightedness, but a stupid negotiating tactic. Final monthly tally: Anti-Israel – 14 / Pro-Israel 1

Methodology: I searched the archives for the New York Times for op-eds and unsigned editorials from the New York Times from September 1 – 30, 2011. I did not include letters to the editor or articles that were not mainly about Israel or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Rep Keith Ellison’s Support the Palestinian State and Carlo Strenger’s Netanyahu’s allies, Democracy’s enemies were not returned in the search so they were not included. The impetus for doing this index was previous public editor, Clark Hoyt’s The Danger of the one sided debate. Hoyt defended the paper’s decision to publish an op-ed by a spokesman for Hamas by arguing:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

This is specious. Giving space to a member of terrorist organization is arguably providing material support. But as these indexes demonstrate, there is no paucity of anti-Israel voices published on the opinion pages of the New York Times. Indeed it seems that criticism of Israel is the one side of the debate that the New York Times is dedicated to presenting.

Some may argue that maybe the NY Times only received submissions that were anti-Israel.  That is doubtful, the Times receives hundreds of submissions every day and cherry-picks through the ones they want.  Remember in 2008 when they ran an Op Ed by Barack Obama and refused to print the rebuttal by McCain? That is the NY Times, sometimes they editorialize not by what they run but by they refuse to run, and in this case for every 14 negative Op Eds they run about Israel, they run one positive one.

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



.

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  

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

It’s A Bird (Actually a Turkey), It’s A Plane, NO It’s A Totally Wimpy U.S. Foreign Policy!

By Barry Rubin

Turkey’s Islamist regime subverted and then opposed sanctions against Iran. That regime also declared Iran and Syria, Hamas and Hizballah to be its friends. It also sponsored a terrorist group (the IHH) to provoke Israel into an international incident that would generate Islamist martyrs and dead Israeli soldiers. Now, rejecting Israeli conciliation attempts (regrets; donations to families of jihadists who got killed trying to kill Israelis), the Turkish regime escalated to the verge of war.

Now the Turkish prime minister goes to Egypt, proposes an alliance with the Egyptian revolution, then advocates a united bloc of Arabs, Iranians, and Turks as well as war on Israel to the assembled Arab foreign ministers.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells the Islamist Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, according to a U.S. diplomat,

“She encouraged Turkey to keep the door open” regarding Turkey’s relationship with Israel. “We want to see them repair their relationship, so she encouraged them to avoid any steps that would close that door and, on the contrary, to actively seek ways that they can repair (their) important relationship with Israel.”

That’s it? Let me put this into a fictionalized reenactment:

Davutoglu: “The evil Zionist aggressive and lawless forces must be taught a lesson by the Muslims even if it means going to war.”

Clinton: “Well, I hope you keep the door open to improving relations. And hope you like our making you co-chair of the counterterrorist group we set up that didn’t even include Israel!

And then we are told that President Obama is Israel’s best friend? But this isn’t serious foreign policy on any issue. Clinton should tell the Turkish regime that its policy toward Israel ald subversion of U.S. interests are unacceptable. Boy, would he be mad! But that’s the way you have to conduct a foreign policy. This is a concept the Obama Administration has never understood and never will.

And that means more enemies, bolder enemies, frightened friends, and bigger crises.

By the way, like a caricature of a ridiculously biased newspaper no longer even trying to hide that fact, the New York Times had a very friendly editorial toward Erdogan who is forgiven all his overt anti-American, pro-radical, extremist, and war-threatening deeds while at the same time it falsely and repeatedly accuses Netanyahu and Israel of being extremist and not wanting peace.

Let’s be perfectly clear here, it’s true that the handling of Turkey has been still one more example of how the Obama Administration’s campaign claiming that critiques of its policy toward Israel is based on lies and distortions. It isn’t. The administration did nothing over many months as Turkey turned with increasing openness and hostility against Israel. Nothing except to reward Turkey.

Moreover, one of the most amazing things is that the administration doesn’t understand that if a crisis builds over many months and it does nothing to prevent or counter it, this does not prove the Obama Administration is guiltless. Egypt’s revolution, Syria’s upheaval, the rebellion in Iran, the Palestinian drive for unilateral independence, and the growing power of Islamists in Libya–an incomplete list–didn’t just happen, they were events for the United States to shape in a favorable manner to some extent. It failed in each case to do even the tiniest amount.

And finally, this is not a case of any U.S. favor to Israel. Trying to rein in an increasingly anti-American, reckless, pro-Islamit government as it turns one of America’s most important allies into one of its most dangerous adversaries is a fundamental U.S. interest.

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

Turkey to Israel and White House to Real Middle East Moderates: DROP DEAD!

By Barry Rubin

The “Godfather” film coined a famous phrase: To make someone an offer they can’t refuse. But in diplomacy there’s the opposite phenomen: To send someone an ultimatum you know they can’t accept. An example of the latter is recent Turkish government diplomacy toward (or should I say, against?) Israel.

Its ultimatum demanded Israel apologize for Turkish citizens killed in the Mavi Marmara confrontation, pay compensation, and end all sanctions against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. This is in spite of the fact that those killed were radical Islamist jihadis who openly spoke beforehand of happily dying if they could kill Israeli soldiers and about massacring all Jews. As for the sanctions, they are against a terrorist group openly declaring its goal of genocide against both Israel and Jews in general and which has repeatedly attacked Israel.

Since Israel refused to surrender to this ultimatum, the Turkish (Islamist) government has expelled Israel’s ambassador just as the new, Palmer report on the Gaza Flotilla incident is released. But while the report claims Israel used excessive force–what is the proper amount of force to use on jihadis with weapons who advocate genocide against you?–it also concluded that the blockade is completely legal and that the flotilla activists acted recklessly. In other words, the Turkish regime demands Israel apologize and pay compensation for those who committed an illegal act in order to harm it.

During the negotiations, some high-ranking Israeli officials wanted to apologize; others didn’t. But it became clear that the Turkish regime kept increasing its demands to ensure there would be no deal. It wanted a pretext for bashing Israel and reducing relations. Israeli tourism to Turkey has already plummeted but is still valuable; bilateral trade had actually increased.

This cooling of relations is no surprise to Israeli policymakers and does not spring from either the war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip (2008-2009) or the Gaza Flotilla. (Similarly, when an Islamist regime took power in Iran no specific problem was needed to turn that country from a friend to an enemy of Israel and there was nothing Israel could do to prevent that turnaround.)

Before either event happened, Israeli officials knew that the period of close cooperation with Turkey was ending because the Turkish government was an Islamist regime hostile to Israel and to Jews generally. Now we have a Wikileaks document in which the then Israeli ambassador tells an American diplomat that the government leaders passionately loathe Israel.

It seems to be a secret mainly to the White House and most of the Western mass media that Turkey is being turned into a police state, that the regime is taking over institution after institution, and has now broken the armed forces–the last barrier to its long-term hegemony and the fundamental transformation of the country from secular republic to semi-Islamist semi-dictatorship (albeit a dictatorship capable of winning more votes than any other party).

When histories of Turkey are written in future, August 2011 will be the date when the secular republic of Ataturk came to an end. On August 30, marking Turkish victory in its independence war and Army Day, military officers were not permitted to hold receptions. Respected officers are daily sent to prison on flimsy charges.

For the first time ever, the president—Abdullah Gul, a doctrinaire Islamist, will receive greatings on Victory Day instead of the military chief of staff.

The Islamist newspaper Today’s Zaman says:

“The Turkish Army needs to be radically reformed. The past influence of the army over politics has postponed the introduction of such reforms….This Aug. 30 will be different from others in the past — the celebrations will not be as lively; however, Eid al-Fitr will be the same as always.”

Islamic observance has triumphed over secularism—reflected in the editorial’s headline, “Victory.” Islam is eternal, that’s the message, while the secularist Turkish republic was just a transient experiment.

The army will now be made into the Islamist regime’s tool. In the shorter term, careerists and opportunists will be promoted to do the regime’s bidding; in the longer term, Islamist officers will be pushed up the ranks as fast as possible. The same pattern is already being applied to the civil service, the Foreign Ministry, and other institutions.

One columnist refers mockingly to “secularist paranoia.” After all, she says, there’s nothing to fear. And didn’t the old Republican regime enforce conformity also? Yes, it did. But it also openly made clear its views and goals, while the Islamist rulers conceal their views and goals. And many are still willing—and are rewarded—for pretending that everything is just fine.

We still hear about how the Turkish model would be a great thing for the Arab world to imitate: an anti-Western foreign policy; growing repression; the state’s domination of media and courts; with those who dissent arrested on charges of terrorism or murder or treason. Sounds terrific!

And so the Turkish Republic established in the 1920s comes to an end with assurances that nothing is really changing. After all, many of those who disagree are in prison so they aren’t able to voice their sorrow, anger, horror, and fear for Turkey’s future.

The demonization of Israel–and also of the United States, though few Americans are noticing this–serves the same purpose in Turkey as it does elsewhere: to incite the masses into supporting a radical regime. The Turkish-Israel alliance has been over for three or four years, now the period of open, systematic, long-term Turkish government hostility begins.

Finally, though, I should add what many Turkish friends–who themselves are miserable and angry about what’s happening in their country (not to mention their bitterness at the continued international praise of the regime) said to me. Just because the captain and crew are bad doesn’t mean the passengers are, too.

As in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and increasingly in Egypt, the real moderates and those Muslims who don’t want to live under an Islamist dictatorship watch in tears as their countries get worse and worse. They watch Western governments, media, and intellectuals praise or even work with their oppressors. They marvel at the good press and concessions given to people who they know despise the West and want to destroy it.

As I write this article–and I’ve been making this point for years–a timely Wikileaks document provides a good example. In May 2008, Saad Hariri, leader of the Lebanese democratic opposition and of the Sunni Muslims as well as the son of a man killed by Syria and Hizballah, spoke to an American diplomat. Remember, this was still the Bush Administration. Here’s what he said:

“The Lebanese are greatly disappointed and have no more faith in March 14 [the moderate uprising against Syria and Hizballah] and in the international community, Saad remarked. He quoted the May 9 White House statement on Lebanon, `We hope…’ `What is this?’ Saad declared.

“‘Hope’ does not deter Syria. If the U.S. decision is to do nothing, then OK–we know.’ Saad strongly urged that the U.S. `just fly a plane over Damascus as a threat.’ He also suggested the U.S. send the Sixth Fleet to Syria’s shore.”

More than three years later, the U.S. government was still cozying up to the Syrian dictatorship. The debate was not over whether to support the Lebanese moderates but about whether or not to engage with Hizballah.

And even today the U.S. government–despite the often good reporting from the U.S. embassy in Turkey–has barely a criticism of a Turkish regime that is aligned with its enemies and destroying Turkish freedom. As if that isn’t enough, the White House use Turkey as the mediator for the future of Syria and presents it as a role model for the Arabic-speaking world! No evidence–be it Turkey opposing increased sanctions on Iran or turning against Israel–has any effect on the White House’s thinking.

To mix a metaphor, the ship of U.S. Middle East interests is sinking and the Obama Administration is cheering the iceberg.

Historical note: The title of this article is a play on the famous New York Daily News headline: “Ford to New York: Drop Dead.”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>