The end of the American era

December 5th, 2007

How come the United States invited Mideast leaders, including those of Saudi Arabia and Syria – and even Iran, although they refused to come – to a meeting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when the real priority is to find a solution to the situation in Iraq?

It’s a long story.

US policy since 9/11 has been remarkably bad, and the Bush Administration – which I admit, with regret, to having voted for – may well go down in history as the one that finally ended the golden age of America.

President Bush declared total war on 9/11, but he was fuzzy about who the enemy was. In war you have to kill the enemy, and if you don’t know who that is you end up killing people arbitrarily. Lots of deaths but no victory.

The President said that he would take steps to dry up funding for terrorists and bring down governments that support terrorism. Some steps were taken against financial networks, but today Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, etc. are swimming in money. We did not kill the enemy.

He did depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but depended on Afghan warlords and Pakistani troops to trap Bin Laden. Unsurprisingly, Bin Laden bought his way to safety, and the Taliban is still fighting after six years.

Despite the ‘total war’, most Americans – with the exception of those in the military and their families – found their lives unchanged. The war was financed entirely by borrowing.

Then Mr. Bush chose to overthrow Saddam in Iraq, who – while certainly a sponsor of terrorism and an all-around rat – had nothing to do with 9/11. That may or may not have been a good idea, but the execution by the political echelon was disastrous (the military did fine – they wiped up the Iraqi army as ordered).

The combination of unpreparedness, lack of good sense, incompetence, cronyism and sheer corruption that characterized the administration of conquered Iraq allowed our real enemies to take advantage of local antagonisms and unsettled scores to trap us between multiple insurgencies.

So far, the administration has managed to confine the damage to, as before, military people, but when the bill for the enormous cost of the war comes due, inflated as it is by corruption, the consequences for average Americans will be devastating. The fact that all of the same weaknesses that caused the occupation of Iraq to fail have resulted in massive failures here at home hasn’t helped.

And the blunt way that the administration hacked away at the constitution in order to prevent terrorism – or at least to look as though it is preventing terrorism while really protecting its own interests – may well come back to haunt us when the destabilizing effects of the coming economic crunch start to hit.

The various insurgencies in Iraq are supported by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Defeating them would mean fighting Iran and Syria as well as forcing the Saudis to do our bidding. We believe that we can’t afford – in blood or money – to do the first, and for at least 35 years we have not been able to go against the wishes of the House of Saud (“Israel lobby” conspiracy theorists please note). We are unable to fight our true enemies.

So the administration has chosen a different approach, that of ‘engagement’. This means asking the sponsors of the insurgents what we need to do to get them to turn down the heat – which, by the way, looks like it is already happening – and then give it to them.

Syria has simple needs: we need to stop annoying them with questions about who killed Rafiq Hariri and enough anti-Syrian members of the Lebanese parliament to change the balance of power; we need to not interfere with the takeover of the Lebanese government by Hizbullah (and we must prevent Israel from interfering); and we need to make Israel give them the Golan heights in return for nothing.

Iran would like us to be more understanding of her aspirations to be a nuclear power. And we are already beginning to back off on the rhetoric; maybe they’re not developing weapons after all.

All three nations are marking out their spheres of influence in the soon-to-be dismembered Iraq. Why not? They have defeated the United States, with its massive military power, by forcing us into a corner which they are betting that we will not try to fight our way out of. And…oh yes. There is one more thing.

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves far less territory, far fewer people and far less natural resources than any number of conflicts flickering around the globe, it has enormous mind space. It has been presented as a titanic clash between the villains of history, the Zionist Jews, who are crushing an Islamic people in pursuit of their goal of destroying all of Islam (never mind that there are more than 100 Muslims for every Jew in the world).

The boundary between cynical employment of this myth and acceptance of its truth, even by sophisticated Arabs (and Persians) has long been crossed. The removal of the Jewish state from the Mideast is a major goal for them, and the Iranians and Saudis are both cooperating and competing to be responsible for it, even though none of them likes the Palestinians much. But they are to be one of the tools for the job.

And this is why the US convened a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is what the Saudis wanted. In the background there are secret agreements with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia; in the foreground, a process that will – in keeping with promises made to the Saudis in the 1970’s – force Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines, hand her capital to the Palestinians, and probably end in a regional war whose goal will be, yet again, to destroy the Jewish state.

So whether or not the Bush Administration makes a graceful exit from Iraq, the shape of the Middle East in the future will be one in which the dominant power is not the US, but probably Iran, with Russian backing.

With all of its macho posturing, this administration may be the one that marks the beginning of the inglorious end of the American era, and possibly the republic as well.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Eat your heart out, Abu El-Haj

December 5th, 2007

Excavation of Helena's PalaceAs if any more evidence for Jewish provenance in Jerusalem is needed:

Israeli archeologists have uncovered a monumental Second Temple structure in a parking lot just outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem opposite the Temple Mount which was likely the ancient palace of Queen Helena, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday…

According to the director of the dig, the elaborate edifice, which is an anomaly in the landscape of the Lower City at the end of the Second Temple period – which was marked with modest buildings – was probably a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Iraqi aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem with her sons…

The well-preserved structure being uncovered in the ongoing excavation is an impressive architectural complex that includes massive foundations; walls, some of which are preserved to a height in excess of five meters and built of stones that weigh hundreds of kilograms; halls that are preserved to a height of at least two stories; a basement level that was covered with vaults; remains of polychrome frescoes, water installations and ritual baths…

The large edifice was overlain with remains that date to later periods: Byzantine, Roman and Early Islamic, while below it there are remains from the Early Hellenistic period and even artifacts from the time of the First Temple. — Jerusalem Post

Incidentally, the Queen Helena we are talking about is also referred to as “Queen Helena of Adiabene” and “the Nazarite Queen” (because she took Jewish religious vows; a nazir is a monk), and is not the same person as the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine who lived a few hundred years later.

Nadia Abu El-Haj will probably tell us that she was really a proto-Muslim. It’s interesting to keep in mind, when the Palestinians talk about their illustrious civilization that was displaced by European Jews in 1948, that Helena lived about 2000 years ago, more than six centuries before The Prophet was a gleam in his father’s eye.

Technorati Tags: , ,

You know them…

December 4th, 2007

Bradley Burston, Ha’aretz:

People who hate the very idea of peace

You know them. The people who come out every time there’s any chance of anything resembling a move toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians. You know their simmering rage, their triumphant condescension, their propensity to call anyone who opposes them, at best, a wishful thinker, at worst, a dangerous traitor.

They are people for whom the very idea of peace ignites a passionate hatred. It is, more often than not, directed against people on their own side of the Jewish-Arab divide.

They will tell you that this peace, any peace, is fictitious, virtual, a fantasy, a sham. They will tell you that for true peace, you need not give up a thing…

You know them. The people who come out cheering for anything that has the word ‘peace’ in it, no matter how unlikely it is to bring peace or how likely to compromise security. You know the way they are prepared to believe any Palestinian atrocity story, and think that the occupation of the West Bank by Israel is worse than the possible occupation of Israel by Palestinians.

You know their simmering rage, their triumphant condescension, their propensity to call anyone who opposes them, at best, anti-peace, at worst, a right-wing extremist just like Yigal Amir.

They are people for whom the very idea of a Jewish state ignites a passionate hatred. It is, always, directed at those who value self-determination for the Jewish people above the aspirations of the Palestinians.

They will tell you that the threat from the Palestinians and their allies is fictitious, that if only Israel will give up a little more, true peace will follow.

Yes, I do know them.

Technorati Tags: ,

Clueless in Gaza (and a few other places, too)

December 3rd, 2007

Western media observers mostly do not understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. It’s interesting to speculate if our governments do.

Either they are are really as clueless as they look, or something entirely different is going on.

Annapolis: One Cheer, One Yawn, One Cynical Shrug
By Barry Rubin

Before the Annapolis meeting, some said the operation would save the patient; others that it would kill the patient. In fact, the patient is exactly the same but the doctors had a hell of a big party and congratulated themselves on doing a terrific job.

We’ll end the conflict by December 2008, says President Bush. We want to make peace and get along, say Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) The Western media cheers it as a big success since everyone showed up and said the right words; nobody walked out or hurled insults. It’s enough to make you believe that peace is at hand.

But there’s a huge gap between Western and Middle Eastern reactions to the meeting. While the former celebrates, the latter knows better than to expect anything.

It isn’t surprising that Western would-be mediators cannot end a conflict when they don’t understand why it exists. Neither the Arab-Israeli nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on a misunderstanding, a gap that can be closed by well-meaning but ignorant conflict managers, or Israeli intransigence.

The reason the issue persists is twofold. First, the Palestinians and a very large portion of their fellow Arabs still want and expect total victory. They don’t seek compromise because they don’t really want a two-state solution, at least not as more than a temporary stage leading to Israel’s disappearance from the map. Thus, there is endless talk about Israeli concessions and commitments but virtually nothing about what is required by the other side. Why? Because they won’t give anything and pointing that out too explicitly shows there is no chance of real progress.

Second, Arab politics needs the conflict’s continuation. Incumbent regimes require it to provide a scapegoat so they can mobilize support for themselves and as an excuse letting them explain away their own multiple failures. The Islamist oppositions need it as a slogan in their pursuit of power. Fatah is in the first category; Hamas in the second.

Consequently, any analysis that piously blames each side equally is incapable of comprehending Middle East politics. Yet peace brokers believe their effectiveness requires a dishonesty that ensures their own failure. They pretend intransigence, terrorism, and incitement comes from both parties.

The future is easily predictable: endless talks; no agreement. The only progress will be from the comforting illusions of vague speeches like those made at Annapolis.

This will have little effect on the ground. Attempts to attack Israel will be made daily, including by Fatah members who may get U.S. training but reject an end to the conflict or even resettling Palestine refugees in a West Bank-Gaza Palestinian state. The PA will arrest almost nobody and hold no one in jail very long. Anti-Israel incitement will continue.

Indeed, the day after the conference ended, PA television ran multiple times a film showing Israel being transformed into an Arab Palestine. What is amazing is not that the PA makes inadequate attempts to preach peace and compromise but that it makes no effort at all in that direction. Meanwhile, what Abbas is really hoping for and expecting is not so much any material Israeli concessions but billions of dollars in foreign aid, in exchange for which he won’t be asked to do much more than merely to survive.

Read the rest of this entry »

Muslim ‘support’ for Gillian Gibbons misses the point

December 3rd, 2007

As everyone knows, Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher arrested in the Sudan for insulting Islam when she named a teddy bear ‘Mohammed’, has been sentenced to 15 days in jail. Fearing that rioting Muslims would kill her, the Sudanese authorities moved her to a secret location, while diplomatic and private efforts proceed to free her.

Tomorrow a British delegation will meet with Sudan’s President to discuss the possibility of a pardon. They will undoubtably try to keep the amount of her ransom secret, as they did in the case of BBC journalist Alan Johnston, who was held in Gaza for almost four months by Palestinian bandits.

Many Muslim leaders in the West reacted with horror. They pointed out that Ms. Gibbons should not have been convicted because she had not intended to insult Islam.

Khurshid Ahmed, chairman of the British Muslim Forum, said: “I don’t think the charge was justified. I don’t think there was a deliberate offence given here.” — Times Online

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies, which represents 90,000 Muslim students in Britain and Ireland, called on Sudan’s government to free Gibbons, saying she had not meant to cause offense.

“We are deeply concerned that the verdict to jail a schoolteacher due to what’s likely to be an innocent mistake is gravely disproportionate,” said the group’s president, Ali Alhadithi. — AP

[Dr. Imad Hassan, British-Sudanese writer] feels compelled to generate support for Mrs Gibbons among British Muslims.

I will try my best to motivate Muslim scholars to speak out to show the original conviction was unfounded… to show that there was no insult to the Prophet and clear her name.” — BBC

“This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms. Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended,” said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the [Muslim Council of Britain] secretary-general. — CBS News

And if it had been deliberate? If it had not been a mistake? If there had been an actual “insult to the Prophet”? Would she be deserving of lashes, imprisonment, death? I don’t think so.

We also hear about cultural sensitivity, and how Ms. Gibbons’ lack of it is responsible for the mess. I quite understand that cultures are different, and Muslims take cartoons and bear names more seriously than we do. But note that they are allowed to insult other religions, as the ugly antisemitic cartoons in Arab periodicals show, while nobody is permitted to insult Islam (and of course they get to decide what’s an insult).

There are good and bad things in our culture, but one of the best is the tradition of permitting speech and expression unless it is actually harmful.

May we not expect Muslims to be a bi more sensitive about our culture, too?

Update [3 Dec 2007 1059 PST]: Gillian Gibbons has been released and is on her way back to the UK.

Technorati Tags: , , ,