► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Barry Rubin’

The three myths that warp every discussion of Israel

by Mojambo ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians at April 18th, 2012 - 11:30 am

Barry Rubin takes a logical approach to the doom and gloom that often hangs over the discussion about the Middle East.  Of course I would feel better if Obama were not calling the shots on U.S. foreign policy.

by Barry Rubin

Whatever side you are, or aren’t, on, and whether you never think about these issues or are an impassioned activist, there are three fundamental issues about Israel, its enemies, and the Middle East that tie the narrative into knots.

Each of these ideas, of course, has a strong basis in fact. Yet no matter how counter-intuitive you find the following points questioning the conventional wisdom, they are nonetheless accurate. You can’t understand events without grasping them.

1. Israel’s existence is jeopardized.

There is no question that Israel’s existence is challenged or threatened by various forces, but what’s essential is that these forces cannot succeed. Every day, after 65 years of failure, they are further from that goal. Israel becomes stronger on all levels. The economic and strategic gaps are getting wider, not narrower, for reasons much related to points two and three below.

What is important is the country’s internal social and strategic strength, not what’s written about it in the Western media or said on Western campuses, for example.

Arab armies have repeatedly been defeated; terrorists repeatedly blocked.

This should not lead to complacency – a mistake most clearly seen in the 1973 war and to some extent in 2006 – but to calm confidence.

[…..]

Despite the sound and fury, much of the criticism and threats remain toothless. For instance, while the UN, European countries and the European Union have wasted a lot of their time spouting nonsense about Israel, it has amounted to little in material terms. The same is true of others.

Another key concept is that the extent of anti-Israel obsession in the public sphere is misleading.

Dozens of countries, causes and groups are vilified all the time, yet of them all none compares to Israel and its supporters in their ability to respond. It is the strength of the resistance that often increases the apparent volume of controversy.

Finally, the use of the Israel issue to fuel hysteria by dictatorships, radical Arab nationalists and Islamists actually undermines the Arabic-speaking world, making it weaker and thus, ironically, less able to combat Israel.
[……]

2. The concerted international campaign by various groups in the West against Israel damages it and helps the Palestinians.

Again, this should be obviously true but it is quite the opposite. To date, despite all the noise, Israeli interests – including businesses – have suffered little damage. On the contrary, the attacks encourage support, including increased buying of Israeli products and energetic loyalty by Israel’s supporters abroad.

But all of these endless demonstrations, teach-ins, books, articles, documentaries, boycott, disinvestment and sanction labors do absolutely zero to help the Palestinians.

On one level, they do nothing politically to advance their cause in a real sense. On another level, they contribute nothing to their welfare.

Moreover, by convincing the Palestinian leadership that they can eliminate Israel completely, that Western support is swinging toward them, and that they don’t need to change their own policies or strategies, all of this behavior leads them charging down a dead-end street. The end result is the battering of their heads against a stone wall.

Imagine – as the activists in these movements have never done once! – that all of this energy went into buying Palestinian products, donating to improve Palestinian schools and hospitals, resettling refugees and providing them with productive jobs and housing. That would be truly pro-Palestinian. And even if the intention was to use this progress as a base for destroying Israel some day it would be more effective than what they are doing now.

Of course, since most of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been engaged in stealing aid money and funneling it into their private bank accounts, admittedly these activists don’t have a very good role model to follow.
[…..]

3. Israel is the main cause of instability in the Middle East.

On one level, of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been a basis for instability that has often been exaggerated. People ignorant of all the other issues in the region have only heard of that one controversy.

Beyond that, though, consider what would be different if Israel didn’t exist.

Implicitly, this is thought by most Arabs and Muslims to be the basis for a united utopian society stretching from Morocco through Afghanistan. But that’s precisely the point. What kind of society would that be? Who – what leader, country and ideology, would lead it? Who gets to be the caliph? In other words, if Israel didn’t exist, the level of internal conflict and bloodshed would be even higher. There would be nothing – including the territorial separation that Israel provides – to stop these leaders, movements, countries and ideologies from being at each other’s throats. Tremendous wars between countries would spill oceans of blood. Decades-long Sunni-Shia conflicts would engulf the lands. Endless internal strife would bring civil wars that would dwarf what we’ve seen in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

Even with Israel, instability of this kind is bad enough, though it is far less noticed than it would be otherwise.

[……]

One final point: because much of the thought and political action on the Middle East is in the wrong direction, running against the realities, the main effect is to confuse those watching and engaging in them. Yet, disregarding all of this noise, what actually exists marches forward. Or to use an Arab proverb, the dogs bark; the caravan moves on.

Read the rest – The three myths that distort every discussion of Israel

Why is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama’s favorite Middle East leader?

by Mojambo ( 71 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Hamas, Hezballah, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Israel, Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinians, Syria, Turkey at January 9th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Probably because they both hate the West and Israel. Obama has never met an Islamo-fascist that he does not support.

by Barry Rubin

For the first time in forty years, Israel is not the American president’s favorite Middle Eastern ally. Instead, that role is played by Turkey’s government.

This would not be such a bad thing if we were talking about the “old” Turkey, the secular republic. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama’s favorite advisor among the regional leaders is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Pretend all you want but Obama really dislikes—hates?—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and truth be told Netanyahu has done nothing to deserve that treatment.

The fundamental problem with Erdogan is despite being embraced by the United States, he is an enemy of the United States, the West more generally, and Israel. He is on the side of radical, anti-American Islamists who want to wipe Israel off the map. So angry and passionate is Erdogan’s loathing of Israel that the leader of the opposition mockingly but pointedly asked if the prime minister wanted to go to war with the Jewish state.

How obvious should this massive change be? Let me sum it up in one sentence: A few years ago Turkey was an ally of Israel. Now it is an ally of Hamas.

In contrast, the list of Erdogan’s dearest friends includes Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, the repressive Sudanese dictatorship, and Syria (formerly the regime there; now the Islamist portions of the opposition). Erdogan would like to be good buddies with the Muslim Brotherhood forces in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, but are suspicious of him, both because he is a Turk and not an Arab; due to memories of Ottoman rule in the past (an empire Erdogan often cites as a role model); and out of sheer competition for power and glory.

Erdogan’s record at home and abroad shows what he and his regime are all about.  Indeed, what is truly bizarre about Obama’s judgment is that Erdogan has done little beneficial to the United States and a number of things detrimental to it:

[……]

Read the rest –  Why is an anti-American Islamist, Obama’s favorite Middle East leader?

 

The end of the Turkish secular republic

by Mojambo ( 51 Comments › )
Filed under History, Islamic Supremacism, Turkey at June 15th, 2011 - 11:30 am

Almost 90 years after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established a secular republic,  Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP party are moving Turkey backwards into Ottoman style Islamist government. This is bad news for the Middle East and for America and a possible glimpse of what will happen in Egypt. The time has come to kick Turkey out of NATO.

by Barry Rubin

The elections in Turkey mark a revolution. When Iran’s revolution happened and the Islamists took over in 1979, everyone knew it. In contrast, Turkey’s revolution has been a stealth operation. It has succeeded brilliantly, while Western governments have failed shockingly to understand what’s going on.

Now we are at a turning point – an event every bit as significant as the revolutions in Iran and Egypt. Of course, it will take time, but now Turkey is set on a path that is ending the republic established by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s. The Turkey of secularism and Western orientation is finished. The Turkey that belongs to an alliance of radical Islamists abroad and at home has been launched.

Here are the election numbers: The stealth Islamist party, Justice and Development (AKP), received almost exactly 50 percent of the vote.

Under the Turkish system, this will give it 325 members of parliament, or about 60% of the seats.

On the opposition side, the social democratic Republican People’s Party (CHP) got about 26% of the vote and 135 seats. The right-wing Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) took 13%, giving it 54 seats.

There are also 36 independents, all of them Kurdish communalists.

Eleven parties didn’t make the minimum 10% barrier (they received only about 1% or less each).

[…]

But the outcome is nonetheless overwhelmingly bad. As you can see above, the AKP’s percentage of voters keeps rising. Most of the people who back the party don’t want an Islamist regime, and don’t think of the AKP in those terms. It rather seems to them to be a strong nationalist party respecting religious tradition that is making Turkey an important international power and is doing a good job on the economy.

The AKP got almost – remember that, almost – everything it wanted. It increased voter support more than any other party, and will be in power for four – and perhaps many more – years, infiltrating institutions, producing a new constitution, intimidating opponents, altering Turkish foreign policy, and shifting public opinion against Americans and Jews to a larger degree.

[…]

This is a disastrous day for the United States and Europe, as well as for the prospects of stability and peace in the Middle East. And it isn’t great news for the relatively moderate Arab states either.

It is the end of the republic as established by Ataturk in the 1920s and modified into a multi-party democracy in the 1950s.

Yet how many people in the West actually appreciate what’s happening? How many journalists will celebrate the election as a victory for democracy? Lenin once reportedly remarked that he would get the capitalists to sell him the rope with which to hang them.

The AKP has gotten the West to provide that rope as a gift.

Read the rest: Stealth Islamism in Turkey

When Obama trots out Rahm Emanuel to write about his love for Israel, he knows that he’s in trouble

by Mojambo ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Egypt, Israel, Palestinians at June 6th, 2011 - 2:00 pm

For the past 30 years we have  been told by idiot savants and self proclaimed experts that unless Israel surrendered everything to the PLO, she will be overwhelmed by the alleged Palestinian birthrate. That argument  has time and again been proven to be a crock. As the author points out – Israel does not rule the West Bank or Gaza so the “time bomb” is a straw man argument. Palestinians are maximalists and imperialists and there is no appeasing them at all as every humanitarian concession is considered to be an act of weakness. As for Rahm Emanuel, he is a classic Cook County thug who actually is not ruling out running for president in 2016 and would sell Israel out in a heart beat despite his fathers Israel connections and background.

by Barry Rubin

You know President Barack Obama understands he’s got problems with Israel (and with its supporters in the United States) when he trots out Rahm Emanuel to write an op-ed in defense of his alleged love for Israel.

Emanuel may have been born to an Israeli father and had his son’s bar mitzva in Jerusalem, but to have him attest to Obama’s credentials on Israel is like having Mel Gibson act as a spokesman for Australia, or Arnold Schwarzenegger for Austria, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn for France’s tourism board. In other words, it’s totally meaningless and even – for those who know something about the individuals involved – counterproductive.

There are, however, two important things it tells us about Obama and his administration: First, they are detached from reality enough to think this is a clever idea. Rather than going to someone actually recognized as being pro-Israel or active in Jewish affairs, he turned to a political crony disliked by both communities.

Despite the near-fanatical support for Obama by the majority of American Jews, he is totally deaf to their concerns and feelings.

Second, it shows that Obama always prefers a cheap public relations gesture to a substantive policy action.

[…]

Why is the “demography” in the region against the two-state solution? Because there are more Palestinians? Who cares? That has absolutely zero political impact.

Israel does not rule the Gaza Strip. Hamas does.

Israel does not rule the people of the West Bank (as opposed to territory there without any people living in it). Fatah does.

Hello? That’s been the basic situation now for 17 years. (Not the Hamas part, the Palestinian Authority aspect.) So what if the Palestinian population doubles, triples, quadruples? That has no effect on Israel’s status as a democratic state.

There is something interesting going on here. Unlike the peace process rhetoric of the 1993-2000 period, nobody dares to talk about how wonderful life for Israel would be if it turned over all the territory captured in 1967 and accepted a Palestinian state. They can only say that things will be worse if it doesn’t.

People in Israel don’t believe this, and for good reason.

[…]

It is delusional.

Read the rest: Rahm Emanuel? Really?