Last posts on middle east

The Haj

2009-03-08T10:18:22+01:00

Be warned, this book may ignite racial discrimination.

The story is about Haj Ibrahim al Soukori al Wahhabi, a Muslim tribe leader living in Aqbat Jabar in the Palestine, who was caught in a conundrum between his ancient Arab roots and the Jews.

It covers what happened in Palestine before, during and after the declaration of the State of Israel. It's not a hardcore historical book. It's fiction. Think of Noli Me Tangere. It's like that. Maybe more.

The Arabs do not acknowledge the State of Israel and treats the Jews as the infidels of the infidels. They believe they have been deprived of their rightful place, the Palestine. But the Jews are, and will always be, hospitable to them. The Arabs refuse to believe that. Any Muslim Arab who will acknowledge the kindness of the Jews will be treated as traitor.

Also, the neighbouring Arab nations of Israel refuse to let the Palestinian refugees settle or live in their countries. They want the world to see how "badly" these refugees are treated. They want the sympathy of the world. They want the Arabs' hatred to the Jews keep on burning.

When the refugees were offered with help, especially from the U.N., they took advantage of it. They did nothing to help and improve their communities, or so called refugee camps. They love to hate the Jews.

I'm still in touched with the book. That's no opinion. It did annoy me that I could almost loathe such foolishness of the Arabs (in the book), ~~which might be projected to the real Arabs~~. I could've hated the Arabs and Muslims for this, but there's a greater "force" in this, which they are victims. And I know reasonable Muslims, one of them is my godmother. I refuse to hate.

Humanity was the last thing of the minds of the Syrians and Egyptians.
Perpetuation of hatred was the first, and in that they have succeeded.
--Haj Ibrahim

However, no revolution has ever come from the Arab people, only coups, holy wars and assassinations.
--Gideon Asch, Jewish friend of Haj Ibrahim

Teamwork requires trust. There is no trust among us.
We pride in ourselves on our potency. In truth, we are impotent.
--Haj Ibrahim

This may not be a book for entertainment, but it's a good book if you want to "see" and "know" what is happening between the Jews and the Arabs. There is truth in this book.

It's quite complicated so I'll just insert this link.

”Civil” War

2007-11-11T19:13:15+01:00

I listened to this article -- "Maronite Christians Thrive in Lebanon" by Peter Kenyon -- on NPR earlier this week and wanted to record two astute quotes from it:

"Like much of the Middle East, Lebanon was fabricated by foreigners. It might be called an accident of history -- if the rapacious manoeuvers of European colonial powers could be called accidents." (Kenyon proceeds to detail some of these manoeuvers.)

Samir Khalaf, author of Civil and Uncivil Violence in Lebanon: History of the Internationalization of Communal Conflict (2002), says: "'What I argue is that as long as the Lebanese were fighting over the visible issues, they don't care. But when these are deflected into [invisible] issues -- autonomy, identity, whom am I, where is my home -- it is then that the fighting begins to be uncivil.' At no time was the violence more uncivil than during the 15-year Civil War that began in 1975."

”The fuel that keeps the war going is us”

2007-09-30T23:13:39+02:00

    Interview With Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh: "The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing"
    By Charles Hawley and David Gordon Smith
    Der Spiegel

Friday 28 September 2007

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has consistently led the way in telling the story of what's really going on in Iraq and Iran. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to him about America's Hitler, Bush's Vietnam, and how the US press failed the First Amendment.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?

Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it's been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA's best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they've been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn't enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren't there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We're going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can't have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I'd actually be relieved because I'd know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he's doing God's work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the "Surge" (eds. The "Surge" refers to President Bush's commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it's going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We've basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They've simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that's a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the lessons of the Surge?

Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he's talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He's not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You're going to have a Kurdistan. You're going to have a Sunni area that we're going to have to support forever. And you're going to have the Shiites in the South.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the US is over four years into a war that is likely going to end in a disaster. How valid are the comparisons with Vietnam?

Hersh: The validity is that the US is fighting a guerrilla war and doesn't know the culture. But the difference is that at a certain point, because of Congressional and public opposition, the Vietnam War was no longer tenable. But these guys now don't care. They see it but they don't care...

Reporter Alan Johnston Released

2007-07-04T03:25:00+02:00

"Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist held hostage in Gaza since March 12, was handed over by his Islamist captors to ruling Hamas officials on Wednesday, a Palestinian source close to negotiations for his release said." More at CNN. (Photo from BBC)

Toward a New, Democratic Middle East

2007-01-11T00:00:00+01:00

Barnett, T.P.M. (2006). Treating Iran as a logical swing asset. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. January 10, 2007. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/01/treating_iran_as_logical_swing.html.Tom Barnett gets it!:

Great piece by Luttwak exploring how sometimes (in Iraq) we need to be pro-Shiia and not be afraid of making Sunni states nervous and sometimes (in Lebanon vis-a-vis Syria) we need to be pro-Sunni and not worry about making Shiia leaders (Syria, Iran) nervous....Now, where Luttwak doesn't go is where I'm dying to go: play Iran more as a scary balancer. The more we dialogue (none yet) with Iran on Iraq, the more we freak the Saudis and the easier it becomes to splinter Syria because we're basically playing prisoner's dilemma with both Damascus and Iran--as in, who's gonna bite first because we'll go harder on the other next.

I agree completely, and back in August I wrote that a Shia Iraq and a Sunni Syria are exactly what we need.

A Democratic Middle East

Keep the Big Bang moving. Support Democracy in the Middle East. Support a Shia Iraq, and a Sunni Syria.

A New Middle East, Part I: Our Vanquished Enemies

2006-08-20T22:35:00+02:00

"The Big Bang spreads . . . the rough way," by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 7 October 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002427.html (from tdaxp)."President's Radio Address," by George Bush, White House Radio, 19 August 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060819.html.As George Bush assumed power in January 2001, the Middle East was in a dire state. The al-Qaeda backed Taliban government ruled Afghanistan, while the noxious rule of the Arab Nationalist-Secularist governments (some in uneasy league with America, others opposed) ruled Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria. If al Qaeda was a rapist, doing damage quickly and violently, the Nationalist-Secularists were parents with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. While al Qaeda was more mindlessly violent, the National-Secularists had been disastrous for their states, rolling back the traditional governments and traditional societies that once existed in those lands. The National-Secularists, from the Ba'ath, to Fatah, to the rest, were politically and intellectually bankrupt.-

Red = National-Secularist, Green = Shia, Yellow = Tribal, Black = al Qaeda, Blue = Globalist

Since then the situation has changed for the better. In three states the National-Secularists have been driven out: by the US military in Iraq, by the people in Palestine, and by a combination of internal factions and external pressure in Lebanon. And Afghanistan, of course, was liberated in Operational Enduring Freedom.

Red = National-Secularist, Green = Shia, Yellow = Tribal, Blue-Geen = Contested between Iran and Globalist, Blue = Globalist, Purple = Muslim Brothers

That these places are unstable is not proof that Bush's plan is failing, but that it is working. As the President recently said

It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.

The same is true, of course, when Palestine, where the Muslim Brother's local branch, Hamas, is squeezed between a justly hostile Israeli and unjustly hostile National-Secularist dead-enders.If we are to judge the Global War on Terrorism by the standards of Thomas Barnett:

In the end, what will have to change for all this violence in the Middle East to stop is not our withdrawal, but political reform in the region. Keeping this fight suppressed, or having it exported to our shores like it was on 9/11 is certainly a safer route for the local authoritarian regimes. Then again, I think 9/11 put us past caring about those regimes' stability like we used to.Bush basically runs a race with Osama: who can destabilize the region's regimes first? Both sides want change, but only one wants to replace the current autocracies with a religious dictatorship. What Bush wants solves the problem. What Osama wants merely extends it.

Then we are clearly winning this Long War. We destabilized Afghanistan, throwing al Qaeda out of their only State. We destabilized National-Secularist Iraq, and now contend with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State. We destabilize National-Secularist Lebanon, and now content with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State.In this New Middle East we are building, we will have to be careful. We will have to deal wisely with the new regional indigenous hegemon, Iran. But we will not have to fear al Qaeda or the National-Secularists. They will be killed. That is why we can leave Iraq now.

A New Middle East, a tdaxp seriesA New Middle East 1: Our Vanquished Enemies A New Middle East 2: Iran A New Middle East 3: Israel A New Middle East 4: Islam is the Answer

Chinese Pilgrims

2005-01-07T05:45:00+01:00

"PM Sharon met with Chinese Deputy Prime Minister," Prime Minister's Office, http://www.pmo.gov.il/nr/exeres/10B5BBC7-0AB7-4189-966A-725029058D8D.htm, 28 December 2004."China ready to take on more active role in Mideast politics," by Mahmoud Al Abed , Jordan Times, http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/homenews/homenews5.htm, 7 January 2005 (from Democratic Underground).

At the beginning of the meting, which was held in an excellent atmosphere, the Chinese Deputy Prime Minister invited Prime Minister Sharon to visit China in order to further improve bilateral relations. He said that bilateral relations have greatly improved since Prime Minister Sharon took office.

and

AMMAN — China is ready to take on a more active role in Middle East politics and enhance partnership with the region, including Jordan, Chinese Ambassador to Amman Luo Xingwu announced on Thursday.At a press conference yesterday, the envoy said Beijing has put forward four-point initiative for peace in the Middle East.The move was taken after Chinese Deputy Prime Minister and State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan's Dec.26-29 visit to Palestine and Israel, where he met senior officials from both sides.In the initiative, China urges trust-building measures between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a halt to attacks against Israeli civilians, facilitation of smooth Palestinian elections and respect for the ensuing Palestinian government, the resumption of peace talks, and an improvement in the living conditions of the Palestinian people.

Excellent. China needs stable economies to trade with. China needs oil, but it also needs stable Middle East allies. Increasing the connectivity between Israel and China helps both nations, and encourages other governments on the road to progress.It encourages the Arab states in other ways too. The Chinese have little compunction about killing Muslims when the times call for it. Welcome, friends.