Briefing in a Minute: The Middle East Right Now

By Barry Rubin

Snippets on the latest developments and themes in the region:

--Israel will deploy Iron Dome defense against rockets, mainly from the Gaza Strip, in November.

--EU "foreign minister" Ashton and--separately--Turkey and Syria--call for complete end of any blockade on the Gaza Strip. Ha! Great minds think alike. Why shouldn't Hamas have all the weapons it wants?

--Syria bans face veils in universities. Promoting revolutionary Islamism is fine as a foreign policy campaign but we wouldn't want them to take over our country and shoot the rulers, right?

--U.S.-Israel relations are quite good, the best at any time during the current presidency, and this could be expected to continue into early 2011 at least.

--The U.S. government has upgraded the Palestinian Authority representatives in the United States to the level of a general delegation, allowing them to fly the Palestinian flag in Washington DC. If this had come after the PA accepted direct negotiations with Israel that might have been understood. But once again we see the fatal pattern: first give a unilateral concession in hope that the other side will reciprocate. Shall I list the occasions on which that approach has failed during the last 18 months? You can develop your own list. That's not the way to do foreign policy.

--The new sanctions against Iran are definitely causing some pressure on and within the country though short of stopping the nuclear campaign it should weaken Tehran's ability to carry out its policies to build up militarily and advance further in regional influence.

--Have Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah signed a secret mutual assistance and alliance

--President Husni Mubarak's illness and the potential change of power in Egypt bears close watching. It is not official but does seem likely that Gamal Mubarak will be the next president. He has some good characteristics--pragmatism and moderation--but his age, lack of military experience, and limited charisma are against him. What Gamal would have to do, then, is to form a close partnership with key members of the elite and get the top people behind him.

There would then follow a period of several years in which either the elite would stand together behind Gamal or split, thus endangering the regime's future. If Gamal did not rule well and consolidate his support, there could be some kind of coup against him. In addition, the Brotherhood could gradually grow in power to fill the vacuum and exploit the discontent. The Brotherhood cannot take over for some years to come. The danger is a longer-term one.

Events could go either way and we will have to watch them closely. It is clear, though that Egypt's regional power is at about the lowest point in 60 years, though its determination to oppose Iran, Syria, and Hamas--if it feels American support is firm--is strong.

Some Semi-Sanity from Europe: EU Foreign Ministers Make Partial Sense on Gaza, Iran

Please be subscriber 16,632. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions since the New York Times doesn't pay for our research. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Remember what I told you: if you want to know what policy is going to be, watch the governments, not the media. While the results of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg were far from perfect, they also show the difference between decision-makers and opinion-makers on the Middle East.

First, the foreign ministers proposed new sanctions going beyond the ones just voted in the UN against Iran’s nuclear program to prohibit new investment and transfer of technology, equipment and services.

The British representative, William Hague, told the EU to take a “strong lead” on this issue. Sweden’s opposition was overcome. We must wait to see the details but clearly this is a step in the right direction. Incidentally, I believe the main European states were willing to do this nine months ago but were forestalled by the go-slow U.S. policy.

Second, regarding the Gaza issue, the EU foreign ministers refused to condemn Israel and adopted a mixed package of proposals. They called for a “credible, independent” investigation of the incident with the Gaza flotilla, which leaves the door open for Israel’s approach of an independent commission with two foreign observers rather than a UN-led (and inevitably wildly biased) process.

They also called for the release by Hamas of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and that the Red Cross be allowed to visit him, while recognizing Israel’s "legitimate security concerns, including the need to cease all violence and arms smuggling into Gaza."

On the other side, they wanted a narrowing of the embargo on Gaza but did not define precisely how this should be done. And Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East said sympathetically that he expected Israel to ease the blockade soon.

The EU position also offered to help in arrangements for the crossings along the lines of its 2005 arrangements, which proved to be useless in practice though they made the EU feel good about doing something.

This is a position that Israel can live with by modifying the embargo. It is generally not realized that restrictions are constantly being revised any way. For example, Israel has agreed in connection with UNRWA to let in construction equipment and concrete for specific, supervised construction projects to ensure that this materiel isn’t used for Hamas military projects.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: Despite the intensive campaign of slander and some losses on the public relations’ front, in diplomatic terms the damage for Israel of the Gaza flotilla crisis has been limited and it has won on the most essential points. Acceptable compromises can basically undercut Western governmental criticism.

What will be the response of Hamas and its supporters? More ships will arrive of two varieties. The peaceful ones will be boarded, taken into port, and their cargoes (whose small size and genuinely humanitarian portions) will be delivered to Gaza. There will be no public relations’ bonus for Hamas or ending the embargo as a result.

There will, then, be more Jihadist ships, too, designed to provoke violence and create martyrs. They will be dealt with and repetition is going to expose—at least for Western policymakers—the scam that’s going on and reduce its effectiveness.

I stand by my pessimistic assessment of the longer-term implications of Western policy as accepting a terrorist, genocide-goaled, Iranian client, revolutionary Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip. For the moment, however, the outcome looks like a weakened containment policy rather than the normalization that Hamas and its supporters are seeking.

The next key question is this: Will the United States and EU countries support a UN-led lynch-mob investigation or not? They may try stalling, saying that it should await the results of Israel's investigation with international observers participating.

Finally, those who have any misunderstanding of the kind of regime they are helping to survive, might read a sermon just broadcast over Hamas's official Gaza television station:

"Whoever believes that our battle with the Jews and the Crusaders has subsided or is dormant is living in delusions....The Jews...annihilation and the destruction of their state will only be achieved through Islam, by those who bow before Allah...."

Helping Hamas is helping to plunge the Middle East, and perhaps the world, into a nightmare of bloodshed and horror.


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 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 (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Two EU Leaders: Complaints about Obama; Fought Against the West Having Nuclear Weapons; Now Indifferent to Iran Having Them

please subscribe for real-time information and data found nowhere else

By Barry Rubin

Remarkable statements have just been made by Europe's two highest leaders which reveal a lot about what's really going on right now.

First, EU Council President Miguel Angel Moratinos, who is also Spain's foreign minister, showed that while President Barack Obama and his many American supporters think that by bending over backward he has done a great job making Europe happy with the United States again that hasn't happened. “Europe needs to show Washington it exists, and not fear being marginalized on the world stage,” Moratinos complained.

Europe today is always on the defensive, he continued, but should stop fearing the United States, and China, too, for that matter. He was angry because Obama said he would not attend a U.S.-EU summit in May. 

Meanwhile, the EU's own foreign minister provides another example of lack of cooperation with Washington and, if one knows the background, a sign of how ridiculous much Western policy on the Middle East is. Consider this bland item:

“EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has cautioned against any hasty European move to slap new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, while announcing she is assuming the role of international intermediary on the issue.

“In an interview with AFP Ashton distanced herself from the position of some EU nations, such as France, which are pushing for extra sanctions to be imposed on Tehran....`We're not moving quickly on anything....’"

Now if you don’t know the background this story is serious in its own right. The EU is in no hurry to put sanctions on Iran; the U.S. government is in no hurry to put sanctions on Iran. But Iran is in a hurry to get nuclear weapons.

That’s bad enough. But there’s another dimension. For many years, Ashton was a leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. During the height of the Cold War she advocated Western unilateral disarmament in the face of the Soviet threat. From her standpoint, the United States and United Kingdom couldn’t get rid of nuclear weapons fast enough. Ashton wanted to ban the bomb when it came to the United States or Great Britain, Iran is apparently more trustworthy.

Now she favors real caution when it comes to the radical, aggressive Islamist dictatorship in Iran getting nuclear weapons. No hurry here; let’s not exaggerate the threat, she says.

In each case, she has favored energetic activism against Western power to weaken it, coupled with giving every benefit to its enemies.

I don’t want to imply she is saying she opposes sanctions forever. The United States is also ready to go to the UN for a resolution. But she does want to go real slow and is very unenthusiastic about doing anything, sounding  like the Russians and Chinese.

In contrast, the British, French, German, and Italian governments seem more willing to move faster and do more than does Obama. But since the U.S. government wants to have the entire EU on board for the sanctions, her stance creates problems as  it means almost any small European country can sabotage the process.

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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Europe Sells Out to Syria and Gets Slapped: A Middle East Case Study in Begging to Give Something for Nothing

[Please subscribe for more news, analyis, and strange but true tales from the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, and other topics of interest.]

By Barry Rubin

Ugarte: “But think of all the poor devils who cannot meet Renault’s price. I get it for them for half. Is that so parasitic?”

Rick: “I don’t mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.” --From the film “Casablanca” 1942

Wow what a great lesson in Middle East politics! Bear with me. The issue seems obscure but the story is a treasure house of dark humor and educational value.

For many years the European Union has talked with Syria about a trade treaty giving Damascus lots of benefits. For some time, the EU balked, insisting that Syria make some commitments on improving human rights in the country. Yet step by step, while Syria did nothing in the way of concessions, the EU gave in until it offered to sign the treaty unconditionally.

And guess what happened? When the EU was ready to sign, Syria said “No!” Get it, the Syrians are getting a big concession which will help their country but they turn it down as insufficient. They get the other side to beg them to accept goodies by merely saying no repeatedly, even though the EU had nothing and Syria had everything to gain.

See any parallels to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Western negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons, and many other examples?

Before we go any further, ask yourself these questions:

--Who’s stronger economically, Europe or Syria? Europe.

--Who’s in need of this agreement in purely economic terms? Syria.

--Who’s blocking peace in the Middle East, sponsoring terrorism in Iraq, trying to take over Lebanon, helping Iran to get nuclear weapons, repressing dissidents with torture, and responsible for murdering the former Lebanese prime minister and other officials in that country? Syria.

--So who’s making all the concessions and acting as the weaker party? The EU!

Talks have been going on for 5 years. At first, the EU went slow because the United States wanted to isolate Syria, and the EU wanted Damascus to promise not to develop weapons of mass destruction. Since Syria said it would not do so, however, the EU dropped that demand.

Next, the EU conditioned the deal on Syria making promises to observe human rights. Again, though, since the Syrians refused, the British and French became desperate to concede on that issue as well. Why? In large part, they want to play a bigger role in the region. The Netherlands objected but was assuaged with the pledge that if Syria became far more repressive the agreement might be suspended. Don’t hold your breath.
So finally, on October 26, the deal was going to be signed. With the EU pulling out its pens, the Syrians said: Wait a minute, we want to think about it some more.

What a humiliation for the EU but did anyone notice? A Syrian analyst close to the regime explained that Syria is gambling on EU weakness in hopes of getting an even better deal and to show its own power.

The agreement’s benefits for Syria are clear: more aid and investment; better access to EU markets. Given its own weaknesses, Syria’s Soviet-style economy is in bad shape and really needs the deal. In addition, the link with Europe would be a real political victory and a breakout from the regime’s isolation.

True, there are two problems for Syria in the deal but each of them are sort of exceptions that prove the rule.

First, Syrian companies would face increasing competition from EU imports. This proves, however, that the argument about Syria or Iran making nice with the West in exchange for economic openings is not at all necessarily true. Moreover, the more Western investment and interaction there is the weaker the regime’s hold over its own society.

Second, in order to qualify for the deal, Syria has to drop subsidies and alter its tax structure. These changes didn’t hurt the elite but the majority suffered under rising prices. This shows not only how the dictatorship protects its own but that the EU efforts actually hurt average Syrians rather than helped them.

For more details see here and here.

The bottom line is that the West trades off advantages in exchange for little or nothing in the belief that it will moderate extremists. The radicals won’t give an inch, grabbing the benefits and refusing anything in return. If extremist behavior is met with Western concessions, this enforces radicalism rather than encourages moderation: the exact opposite of the policy’s stated intention.

This reminds me of an old psychiatrist’s joke:

“Hit me,” says the masochist.

“No,” responds the sadist.

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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Syria’s Policy and Europe’s Pay-Offs Disprove A Cliché: Crime DOES Pay

By Barry Rubin

If you are seeking ironies, you need look no further than the Middle East. Consider:

Syria is a country which:

--Is a dictatorship and regularly violates human rights, with peaceful dissidents arrested, thrown into prison, and tortured.

--Provides the headquarters for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah.

--Gives a safe haven and base of operations for terrorists in Iraq who have killed thousands of civilians.

--Is being investigated for its role in a dozen terror attacks in Lebanon, including direct accusations of its ordering the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

--More than any other country in the world, cooperates with al-Qaida and helps it launch operations.

--Was caught two years ago building a secret nuclear plant for making atomic weapons.

BUT, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, whose government will hold the EU presidency come January 1, has just expressed his support for the EU signing a partnership agreement with Syria. European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner has stated that an EU-Syria deal is close.

Britain and France have already expressed support for signing the agreement.

This comes at the very moment when Iraq is accusing Syria of involvement in major terrorist attacks in Baghdad plus complaining that it refuses to expel those organizing the war of terrorism against Iraq. In addition, while European states supposedly support higher sanctions against Iran they are rewarding its closest and most faithful ally.

The deal was held up previously given European demands that Syria had to improve its human rights’ record before it could be signed. The record is worse now but the Europeans appear to have given in on the issue.

There are no declarations of outrage about Syria’s behavior from governments, no campaigns against it in European media, no street demonstrations against its sponsorship of terrorism or human rights’ violations.

Who says crime doesn’t pay?

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 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Stop the Presses: Blood Libel Goes Mainstream: Swedish Newspaper Proves Antisemitism Is Anti-Zionism Is Now Acceptable

Note: If you find this article useful, please read others at RubinReports and consider subscribing.  

By Barry Rubin

Update (August 29) Most of Sweden's newspapers have condemned the antisemitic article and particularly point out the fact that no proof of the allegations is offered. It should be understood that while anti-Israel feeling in Sweden is very high, this is mainly true of the left and the Social Democratic party and not necessarily the country as a whole. Even the current government has been better than its Social Democratic predecessor. But one should also keep in mind what Ilya Meyer calls, "decades of unmitigated hate-mongering and constant bias in the Swedish media."

Update (August 22) In a new development, Ilya Meyer points out that the book in which the original claims that Israel was murdering Palestinians to steal their organs was financed with Swedish government money.

Update (August 20):
What is provoking outrage in Sweden is not the article itself but the statement of Sweden's ambassador in Israel who expressed a partial apology, while defending free speech in Sweden. Where were all these people during the Danish cartoon controversy when Sweden's government went far out of its way to grovel and even try to repress those who published the cartoons?

Meanwhile, Jan Helin, editor of the newspaper that published the article accusing the Israeli army of murdering Palestinians to steal their organ defended it as an opinion piece and accused critics of using antisemitism as an excuse:

"It's deeply unpleasant and sad to see such a strong propaganda machine using centuries-old anti-Semitic images in an apparent attempt to get an obviously topical issue off the table."

The strong propaganda machine he should have had in mind was that of the Palestinians who use old antisemitic images to get off the table such topical issues as their intransigence and terrorism. Editors are not supposed to like being duped by false information.

But instead Helin reserves his wrath for those objecting to the Swedish media's endless defamation of Israel. They are the ones, he says, trying to hide something? Like what: murdering Palestinians to steal their body parts?

Let's remember this article was written by a known anti-Israel activist for an editor who is an anti-Israel activist accusing Jews of the modern-day equivalent of ritual murder without any evidence. The editor also misstates that point. If he thinks that the arrest of a Jew in New York for criminal activity automatically suggests that the state of Israel is involved officially in murder, he's acting out a pretty good example of classical antisemitism right there.

Update 2 (August 20)

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has now withdrawn the Swedish ambassador to Israel's statement of dismay. Previously, the Swedish government--which now poses as a defender of free speech--shut down Internet servers of those who had published the Danish cartoons.  For an account of the Swedish Green party's entrance into the issue, go here

Update (August 19):

To show this isn't an isolated incident, Die Telegraaf, Holland's largest newspaper, has just published an interview with a woman who claims that swine flu and other diseases are created by a Jewish conspiracy in order to kill large numbers of people. The reporter let Désirée Röver, who is described rather imaginatively as a journalist, present her wild ideas with no significant contradiction. [Please see note at the end of this article.]

What did the newspaper print as her raving about why  Jews are doing this? Rover states that Jews today--who are actually not real Jews but descendants of a Turkic tribe--pray to "Lucifer, Satan" albeit possibly in the guise of "Rockefeller, Rothschild, [Zbigniew] Brzezinski and [Henry] Kissinger." For the record, the Rockefellers are Protestant not Jewish, and Brzezinski, a Catholic, is rather unfriendly to Israel.

One can easily see   the implications here are the old ones that Jews worship wealth and control the United States. And you can already see antisemitic groups repeating this story as true. Anyone making such claims about any other group in the world--race, religion, country--would, of course, get no hearing and be immediately shouted down as "racist."  The editors and reporters who allowed publication of such material would be quickly fired.

Yet in milder forms, as you can see from previous articles on this blog, Israel and to a lesser extent Jews are slandered on a daily basis. The "war crimes" charges published by many newspapers and other media without evidence are an example. (Like the Swedish article, they are simply repeating Palestinian propaganda.)   Only when charges become beyond ridiculously extreme do they get some critical attention

Palestinian and Arab antisemitism are generally ignored. Palestinian Authority media, many supported with European funding, frequently say that the Holocaust was a hoax, that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem, and such old favorites as the alleged Israeli distribution of toxic chewing gum. Hamas, which regularly purveys stories similar to the Swedish and Dutch ones, is increasingly being discussed as a diplomatic partner by some European officials and in many intellectual circles.

And speaking of journalism, you might not know that last month the International Federation of Journalists expelled the National Federation of Israeli Journalists on a pretext

Welcome to the new, improved progressive and politically correct 1930s.

Meanwhile, back in Stockholm....

We are not talking about a Saudi newspaper or Hamas radio station but a Swedish newspaper. We are not talking about a neo-Nazi rag but a daily closely tied to the Swedish Social Democratic Party. And we are not just talking about an obscure item but an article that received top billing.

On August 18, Aftonbladet, Sweden's largest newspaper which claims 1.5 million readers, published an article by a man named Donald Boström. The editor responsible is named Åsa Linderborg. She is the newspaper’s cultural affairs’ editor.

This was no random decision for her. When asked once: “What do you wish for most in life right now?” She answered: “What a simple question. What I want is a free Palestine.”

And what did this article say? That Israel’s army deliberately kidnaps Palestinian civilians and then murders them so it can cut out and sell their organs to sick people needing transplants.

The story is based on the arrest of a Jewish man in Brooklyn for selling organs but the news coverage has no hint of any Israeli connection.

The Swedish story is based on Palestinian sources (though the author also claims he has UN sources for it)--like so many slanders of Israel which are widely purveyed. It is easy to forget that the false claim of a Jenin massacre--which received massive coverage in the Western media--was based on an interview with a single Palestinian who nobody even knew.

Palestinians simply told him that the bodies of terrorists or others killed came back with organs missing. Any photos, medical records, documented complaints? Of course not.

[Ironically, the Beirut Daily Star has a very responsible article, with no claim of Israeli involvement, on the issue of organ sales.]

At this point you are no doubt thinking: This is some kind of sick joke.

Yes, it is. But the newspaper published it any way.

Apparently, the author is a left-wing activist for Palestinian causes, though the newspaper calls him a journalist.

[By the way, this is not the first time such accusations have been made. In the Turkish film, "Valley of the Wolves," Gary Busey played an American Jewish doctor who was stealing the organs of Iraqis for the United States and Israel. Note that the Turkish prime minister praised the film, that it was shown to large Muslim audiences in Holland and elsewhere in Europe, and that a friend who saw it in Syria noticed people crying in the theatre at the sight of such evil behavior. Have no doubt: many thousands of people who saw the film believe this accusation to be true.]

To show how typical this is, Radio Sweden has just broadcast once again the claim that Israel murdered Muhammad Dura, a little boy who may or may not have been killed in the Gaza Strip by Israeli or Fatah bullets. The only proof of these claims was a very suspicious video (other parts of which show Palestinians rehearsing for the show) which a French court has determined to be a fraud. That court decision went unmentioned by Swedish radio.

As Ralph Haglund points out, a Swedish radio Middle East correspondent said he is always ready to take the word of Hamas over that of Israel.

And just to "balance things out," Sweden, at the moment EU president is sending its ambassador to Iran to grace next month's inauguration of recently "reelected" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose ideas are starting to seem triumphant in key sections of the European mass media. This is at the very moment when Stalinist-style show trials of opposition leaders are being held by his regime.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, Something is rotten in the state of Sweden.

Will Swedish politicians, intellectuals, and others rise up, pronounce this defamatory article and other things going on in that country to be a national disgrace, and demonstrate? Will the editor be fired? Will there be serious reconsideration of how the hatred of Israel which has so obsessed this supposedly enlightened country has gone over the edge? Will this irrational hatred be re-examined and repudiated? Will the forgotten lessons of how such attitudes produced the Holocaust be learned once again?

I wish so but I don’t believe there will be a powerful reaction.

At least, though, the competing newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, has blasted the article which it says is an antisemitic blood libel without a shred of evidence. For other brave people who are objecting in Sweden--albeit there are very few of them--go here.

.What does this incident tell us? One thing is that there is no limit to the insanity of how Israel is treated nowadays in so many supposedly responsible, left-wing, and intellectual circles.

It also tells us that anyone of decency and good intentions should start re-examining right now their credulity in accepting anti-Israel slanders, nonsensical media or academic claims, or irresponsibly inaccurate “human rights” group reports.

It also tells us that Jews who criticize Israel based on what they are being taught at universities and what they see in the media need to think about what they are doing. And, yes, all this bashing and chipping away at Israel’s reputation; this unfair blaming; this blindness toward the goals, behavior, and ideology of radical Islamist forces and Palestinian intransigence is promoting an antisemitism beyond anything seen in the Western world since 1945.

The time has come to realize that antisemitism, anti-Zionism, absurd misrepresentation of Israel and the effort to wipe it off the map are all tightly intertwined.

We have seen the rise of a systematic industry in wild anti-Israel claims by Palestinians which are repeated without evidence by the Western news media and others. 

Yet this type of story about ghoulish Israeli monsters is actually rather typical nowadays. The basic methodology in the Swedish case is like that of dozens of others, only in this case the specific accusation was too lurid to win wide acceptance in the West (though not in much of the Arabic-speaking and Muslim majority world).

The recipe is simple: Palestinians make up charges, tell them to sympathetic reporters or academics or "human rights'" officials who don't demand evidence, and then are widely spread through other willing executioners of truth whose low degree of professionalism and high level of politicization make them conducive to becoming collaborators in the enterprise.

Before Israeli officials can investigate and present a detailed response--largely ignored by the media--they are all off to the next lurid accusation.

The fact that none of these accusations is ever ultimately proven correct seems to have no effect on the industry.

In a variation of this theme, a few days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly denounced, as if it was some sort of ethnic cleansing, the eviction of two Palestinian families from an apartment building in Jerusalem. Apparently, Palestinians had presented it as such to U.S. diplomats in Jerusalem.

In fact, as the public record clearly showed, this was merely the result of an Israeli court decision following a long, detailed case lasting years, for non-payment of rent. Palestinian families who paid rent in the building had no problem at all.

The British newspaper of intellectuals and beautiful people, the Guardian, carries an article which uses this incident, among other things, to claim that Israel is a Nazi country. That's two families evicted for non-payment of rent, not quite equivalent to seizing Austria and Czechoslovakia, invading all of Europe, and murdering 12 million or so Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, Russians, etc., etc.

In fact, when the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein murdered tens of thousands of Kurdish citizens in the 1990s or when the Syrian regime murdered 10,000 to 15,000 of its own citizens in Hamas in 1982, there was no outrage at all in the West. There still isn't today.

In his Cairo speech, President Barack Obama urged Arabs and Muslims to reject antisemitism. Guess he needs to make that speech to Europeans now.

After all, the hysterical misrepresentation of Israel increasingly seems to parallel the tales of well-poisonings, ritual murders, and Zionist conspiracies to seize world power of past eras.

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 latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. To see or subscribe to his blog, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

For ongoing coverage of Scandanavia, see the Tundra Tabloid blog.

Note on the Dutch article: Some correspondents have written me to say that the article in question was making fun of the person being interviewed. I have asked several people who are native speakers of Dutch to read the article and give me their opinion. They have told me that their conclusion was that the article was uncritical except for a bit of ridicule at the end. Perhaps the journalist thought that the person in question was showing herself to be ridiculous and that readers would draw that conclusion. As of now, though, I am sticking by my interpretation which I believe to be correct. I did not at any point say that the newspaper endorsed the conclusion but did publicize it.

Britain, France, Want to Reward Syria for Intransigence. So What Fool Would be Moderate Under Such Conditions?

By Barry Rubin

Perhaps you think I exaggerate when I talk about the follies of Western policies toward the Middle East, so consider this relatively obscure but instructive tale.

For many years, the EU has been holding up the signing of an association agreement with Syria. The immediate reason is that there is very good reason to believe that the highest levels of the Syrian government were behind the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Harari in 2005. The idea was that by withholding the arrangement, pressure would be put on Damascus to change its ways. And since the agreement was of great financial benefit to Syria while of little advantage to the EU, the Europeans seemed to have leverage.

Ah, but regimes that care nothing for their people’s interests (one can include the Palestinian Authority here in its own way) have a tremendous power: the power to say “No.” Yes, even when they reject deals which would be to their material advantage (peace with Israel, better relations with the West, and a more open economy) they refuse to agree.

Why? For two main reasons.

First, the deals may not be as advantageous as they seem. If you make peace with Israel, you lose the demagogic and scapegoating advantages of a continued conflict. Or if you open up your economy, the dictatorial regime loses control, meaning it has less money with which to enrich leaders and bribe supporters, while potential oppositionist businessmen get more loot in their hands.

Second, if you keep saying “No,” the West is so eager to make deals, have agreements, and keep you happy that it will surrender (or at least you have a reasonable hope that it will do so). Knowing victory is assured in any battle of wills with a Western adversary, it makes sense--whether you are Iranian, Syrian, Hamas, Hizballah, North Korea, or others who can be put on this list--never to give in.

Thus, year after year, the Syrians held out. They sponsored terrorism, kept their alliance with Iran, murdered Lebanese who wanted their country to be independent of control by Damascus, sabotaged Arab-Israel and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, suppressed freedom at home, and threw dissidents into prison.

And all the time the Europeans became more and more nervous. Sweat poured down their brows; their hands shook. How could they stand firm when there were goodies to be handed out in exchange for nothing or problems to be solved immediately and forever!

Finally, they partly broke down and initialed the agreement. But that wasn't enough because Syria became even more militant. So now, the British government—following France’s lead--says, in effect, “What the heck, the Syrians refused to change, our policy is ineffective, so let’s give them everything they want.”

Yes, says the deputy foreign minister, Ivan Lewis, Syria violated human rights and we’re really, really concerned about it. And we’re also concerned about their alliance with Iran and their backing for Hamas and Hizballah.

But on the other hand, we want to encourage Damascus to change its policy. Since it refused to do so when we withheld a huge present so let’s try giving it to them and see what happens!

Lewis told reporters—try not to laugh—that “We don't hide our concerns" about human rights. Get it? We’re concerned but we’re just not going to do anything about it. In fact, we’re so concerned we’re going to reward the repressive dictatorship that is trampling on human rights.

Oh, did I mention that Syria’s economy is facing a drought and a huge crisis? (Sarcasm alert) Everyone knows that when your enemy is really weak that’s the best time to make big concessions to it rather than use leverage to press it for concessions.

And did I mention that Syria’s human rights’ record is even worse than it was in 2005, with round-ups of almost all democratic dissidents? In other words, there is more reason than ever to block the agreement.

As of now, one country—the Netherlands—has its finger in the dike to hold back the agreement from being confirmed.

Can you imagine what the—please excuse my language—thugs and gangsters in Damascus running Syria as a socialist-sloganed but feudally structured fiefdom think of European leaders?

The above is indeed written in sarcastic fashion. Yet it is 100 percent accurate.

That’s Western diplomacy, 2009 style.

2009: A Diplomatic Odyssey, On the Wine-Dark Sea of Middle Eastern Politics

By Barry Rubin

“‘If anyone unwarily draws in too close and hears the singing of the Sirens, his wife and children will never welcome him home again, for they sit in a green field and warble him to death with the sweetness of their song. There is a great heap of dead men's bones lying all around, with the flesh still rotting off them. Therefore pass these Sirens by….

“‘Come here,’ they sang….`He who listens will go on his way not only charmed, but wiser, for we…can tell you everything that is going to happen over the whole world.’” --The Odyssey, Book 12

So sang the Sirens to Odysseus. They promised not material or carnal joy but wisdom, for they claimed to predict the future. And thus warble the two Sirens, those of America and those of Europe. And what do they sing to Israel?

More! More! More concessions; take a risk; take a chance; prove you want peace. If you make a deal with Arafat; if you give control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip; if you offer to come down from all the Golan Heights; if you withdraw from south Lebanon, if you withdraw from the Gaza Strip, if you offer a state, then we will love you and help you and you will live in peace! We know the future and it will be a future of peace if you only heed us, you silly, stubborn people!

Come the delegations, come the parliamentarians, come the journalists, to the shores and luxury hotels, and conference rooms. And those who comply are rewarded, for a short time, with honeyed words and nice media coverage. Blessed are those Israelis who make unilateral concessions for they are called “moderates.” And cursed be those Israelis who don’t make unilateral concessions, for they will be called “hawks” and “hardliners.”

But soon their bones, or rather those of their less fortunate countrymen, lay all around. And the Sirens reset and start all over again.

We are only looking for your own good, they say. We want to help you. These are the lotus wholesalers.

As Homer also wrote:

“The Lotus-eaters did them no hurt, but gave them to eat of the lotus, which was so delicious that those who ate of it left off caring about home, and did not even want to go back and say what had happened to them, but were for staying and munching lotus with the Lotus-eaters without thinking further of their return.” –The Odyssey, Book Nine.

For no sooner is a concession given, a risk taken, that it is forgotten by those who ate lotus at the diplomatic banquets, at the international conference buffets. And so is the promise of support.
Remember the 1990s’ version of the Sirens’ song?

Here’s the plan: Create a Palestinian Authority, give them lots of money and guns. Let them bring in tens of thousands of Palestinians. Turn over more and more of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

And by governing they will learn responsibility. And Yasir Arafat will become moderate, and a statesman. And there will be no more terrorism or incitement to terrorism. And there will be a two-state solution.

And what about the 2006 song: Stop the war with Hizballah and the UN will establish a strong force to patrol south Lebanon. Hizballah will not be able to return or to build military installations. Arms smuggling will be halted. For we are the entire international community, almost 200 nations strong.

And each time, the chorus goes: if this doesn’t work out, we will support you. We will recognize the risks you have taken, and the concessions you have given, and the losses you have suffered. And the name of Israel will be exalted as a great peacemaker. And the media will say nice things about you.

The above is written in what I hope to be an entertaining style. But it is deadly serious—as dead as hundreds of Israelis are as a consequence of Western advice and promises, along with hundreds of Palestinians whose deaths are also a direct result of these failures.

That’s what happened. And here we are at the end of that process as if none of it has happened.

As if the concept of having a “reset” of policy is just a euphemism for short-term memory loss.

If Israel’s leaders and people believed that a freeze in settlement construction would actually bring benefits--either for real peace or for at least real and full Western support based on an understanding that the Palestinian leadership didn’t want peace and that Arab states would do almost nothing to bring it about—it would happen despite all the political obstacles. But the Israeli public is, for good reasons, doubtful.

If only, we were told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he would accept a two-state solution, how we will appreciate you! And he did. And they didn’t.

How many weeks after the freeze, for example, would the Europeans find some new reason to stop advancing toward Israeli integration with the European Union?

Knowing all this, we will follow the advice of Circe to Odysseus on how to deal with the Sirens:
“Pass these Sirens by, and stop your men's ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you…and they must lash the rope's ends to the mast itself….If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you tighter.”

With all seriousness, the absolute refusal of American and European leaders and journalists even to acknowledge this history and their own behavior guarantees Israeli refusal to heed their Siren song.

Repeatedly, without being tied to the mast, I have raised this issue in private conversations—What about your unfulfilled promises in the past? What about the risks we’ve taken unrewarded? What about all the other concessions that have backfired?--to Western political figures and diplomats. Not a single one responds.

Let me emphasize that: they don’t deny, they don’t apologize, they don’t even make a counter-argument. They simply go on without any reference to what I’ve just said. Not once have I ever heard an effort to address this issue from anyone in an official position. That’s no exaggeration.

They are the ones with wax in their ears. But if they refuse even to acknowledge the consequences of their past demands and advice, why should we listen to their latest versions of the same tune?

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 latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. To see his blog, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A U.S. Middle East Policy Emerges: Great in Theory, Certain to Fail in Practice

By Barry Rubin

A clear, consistent, and carefully formulated U.S. strategy is emerging in the Middle East. Unfortunately, it’s a badly flawed one that won’t work. Probably, the Obama administration will spend the next six months finding out what I’ve just told you. Hopefully, it will learn and change as a result.

Let’s consider the interrelated U.S. policy regarding Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1. Obama Strategy on Iran

On Iran, the U.S. plans to build sanctions against Iran, going slowly to keep Europeans on board and to win assent from Moscow.

The other arm of this policy has been a careful effort to avoid friction with Tehran. Some in the administration think that engagement might work but probably more and more view it simply as a way to show the world that America has tried and that Iran is intransigent (something the world should already know).

At any rate, starting in September the administration intends to spring its trap! Everything will be ready: allies coordinated, rationale laid. Tougher sanctions will be raised against Iran; stronger warnings will be made.

Yet if one puts aside all the atmospherics and personalities, doesn't this put the Obama administration in October 2009 about where the Bush administration was regarding Iran in October 2008? In other words, U.S. policy will not be noticeably more likely to affect Iranian behavior now than it was then.

The big difference is supposedly that Obama's popularity and the fact that he tried engagement with Iran will translate into strong European support for sanctions.

But even with their liking Obama, how much more will Europeans do? Moreover, Obama is neither wildly popular nor has he made progress with the two biggest barriers to strong sanctions: Russia and China.

Other countries will not drop their past opposition to getting really tough with Iran just because they like Obama more than former President George Bush or because they will suddenly decide Iran has been given enough chance to repent.

No, their motives for being reluctant to raise sanctions far higher are:

--Economic self-interest. There are big profits to be made from trade and investment.

--Desire to avoid confrontations with Iran, a country that has a lot of money and which kills people who oppose it.

--Belief that a nuclear-armed Iran can be managed.

As for Russia, it views Iran as an asset. Tehran buys its nuclear equipment, weapons, and helps subvert U.S. policies. In China’s case, aside from the profit motive, is fear of setting a precedent with sanctions which some day might be used against itself over human rights, or Taiwan, or Tibet.

True, Obama has a plan for winning over Russia. It just isn’t a good one. His advisor on nuclear issues, an able, decent expert (but not on international politics) named Gary Samore says, "I think the effort to reset the relationship with Russia... can have the effect of making it more likely that Russia will cooperate with us in dealing with Iran."

More likely, "very slightly less likely" rather than "more likely," but it still won't happen in any meaningful way.

Samore continues:

"That strategy of working on a new START treaty in parallel with efforts to improve our coordination on Iran seems to be working and we'll find out later this year whether that ends up being successful."

But is Russia going to trade, as the Obama team hints, a nuclear treaty in exchange for serious cooperation over Iran? No. Reducing America's nuclear arsenal, which is not a desperate need for Russia any way, would already be paid for by Russia's reducing its own arsenal!

[Update: I was right! Russia rejects any increase of sanctions on Iran.

In other words, no matter how charming Obama is, no matter how many concessions he makes to the Europeans and Russia, no matter how much he proves himself willing to be friends with Tehran, it won’t change that much.

Furthermore, just how tough will be the sanctions Obama will request, much less get? They are not likely to be "killers" to start with and then will get watered down further to win broad support. And then after being announced they will be watered down even more in order to ensure adaption. And then after being agreed to they might well not be completely enforced.

In short, Tehran isn't trembling.

But let’s take the best-case outcome. Suppose everyone is ready to agree to tougher sanctions. These would still be far too low to force Iran to give in. Moreover, the new Iranian government is tougher than ever and less inclined not only to compromising away the nuclear weapons’ drive but even to slowing it down. Having crushed demonstrations in Tehran these aren’t leaders to be cowed by finger-wagging from diplomats in suits more expensive than the average Iranian makes in a year.

Meanwhile, Obama’s general rhetoric and overall approach to international affairs convinces Tehran that the West is weak. Ignore it, say the mullahs. Full speed ahead! Then when we have nukes, who cares what the West says, If it even dares complain.

So this Iran policy, though it seems brilliant to its creators, is hopeless.

2. THE ARAB-ISRAELI COMPONENT

Now, let’s turn to Arab-Israeli conflict policy. Alexander Pope wrote: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

In other words, the Obama administration has learned part of the truth but this has made its policy worse rather than better.

What it understands correctly is that most Arab regimes (excluding Iran’s little buddy, Syria) are more worried about Iran and radical Islamist groups than about Israel.

In light of this correct insight, the administration has devised a brilliant—in its own mind—plan.

This policy is not a repeat of the old panacea--bash Israel and get peace. It is a more updated, softer (but not necessarily more sophisticated) strategy which can be summarized as: get Israel to make one concession and everything will fall into place.

Here's the grand plan: The United States will force Israel to freeze construction on Jewish settlements on the West Bank, then using this proof of evenhandedness, will go to Arab regimes and say: You see we’re ready to push Israel, now your job is to push the Palestinians toward compromise, convince Israel of your own readiness for peace, and stand with us more vigorously in containing Iran.

Arab rulers will reply—indeed, the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians have already done so—“not by the hairs on your chinny-chin-chin,” as the three pink mammals, whose species cannot be mentioned in these Politically Correct times, put it in the nursery rhyme. Or in more scientific language, “You get bupkis!”

They'd probably say this any way but can do so more easily knowing that Obama is not going to huff, and puff, and blow their houses down. On the contrary, they know that the Iranian regime and their own people are far scarier than Barack Obama.

And so this strategy, too, will fail.

I certainly agree that forming an alliance of the West, Israel, and most Arab states is the central task in the Middle East today, but Obama and his colleagues hugely underestimate the difficulty in doing so.

It wasn’t just mean old George Bush that prevented the Arab-Israeli conflict from being solved but Palestinian and Syrian intransigence plus Arab state passivity.

It wasn’t just mean old unpopular George Bush that prevented Arab states from doing more to help U.S. policy to stabilize Iraq and contain Iran. It was the self-interest of those regimes that did so.

At best, while most Arab regimes agree that the main danger is Iran and radical Islamism, they aren't going to stick their necks out, especially now that the United States seems weak and uncertain about providing real leadership. And they are still content to let America do all the work.

If this analysis were a cartoon, then, the caption would be: "Smithers, it is a carefully composed, comprehensive, detailed, and internally logical plan. Congratulations. Unfortunately, it is a very bad plan and it won't work."

Think of how an alternative might look. Last May 27 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

"With respect to settlements, the President was very clear....He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions....That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly...And we intend to press that point."

What would this approach would sound like if applied to Iran’s regime:

"With respect to nuclear weapons and sponsorship of terrorism, the President was very clear....He wants to see a stop to nuclear weapons--not some nuclear weapons, not just the warheads, not just the missiles....That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly....And we intend to press that point."

Or how about Syria’s regime?

"With respect to Syrian sponsorship of terrorism, the President was very clear....He wants to see a stop to Syrian sponsorship of terrorism–not just training terrorists, not just financing terrorists, not just ordering them to attack, not just giving them safe passage across the border, not just against Lebanon, not just against Syria, not just against Israel....That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly....And we intend to press that point."

But of course such a policy would require some real toughness against enemies on real big issues, not just gigantic posturing against an ally on a really small issue. U.S. policy neither intends nor in the end will sell out Israel. The problem is much worse from an American standpoint: it is dangerously subverting its own interests.

There's a problem when any serious and well-informed observer should be able to see six months ahead of time that U.S. policy isn't going to work.

There’s an even bigger problem when administration officials and the media are so busy congratulating the genius of the current administration that no one notices the train is speeding toward a chasm without a bridge.

So, Mr. President, save this column and read it again in six months. It will make more sense to you.

EU Policy on the Peace Process: Where’s The Adult Supervision?

By Barry Rubin

One of the reasons why Israel is so suspicious of negotiations efforts is that “friendly” Western countries and institutions seem to feel no obligation whatsoever to live up to their past commitments to Israel, commitments on whose basis concessions have been made and risks taken.

Now Javier Solana, the European Union’s chief diplomat with long experience in peace process mischief, has proposed a new plan. A deadline will be set for creating an internationally recognized Palestinian which would be made a member of the UN. There would be a timetable for settling all issues of borders, refugees, Jerusalem, and so on.

What is the obvious result of such a scheme? Knowing that it would get a state even if it does nothing gives the Palestinian side every excuse for…doing nothing.

This is precisely the reason why Israel has been insisting on making clear the principles of such a two-state agreement—Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, settlement of refugees within the Palestinian state, an unmilitarized state, and adequate security guarantees—before agreeing to any such outcome.

So eager are the Europeans and the U.S. government to give the Palestinians a state that they don’t demand the Palestinian Authority does anything to prove its own reliability or indeed to make any commitments whatsoever. In short, they get the prize for free and then are asked if they are willing to pay something. Presumably they won’t

What makes this approach so, well let’s say it, insane, is that it serves neither Western interests nor promotes regional stability, not to mention Israel’s own rights and requirements. To create an unstable state, unbound by any commitments, and give it full international standing is a formula for ensuring the conflict is never resolved and increasing the level of violence and bloodshed in the area.

Aside from this, Solana’s proposal contradicts every agreement of the last 20 years, including most recently the Road Map, which the EU has endorsed, because these state that only an agreement negotiated by both sides would produce such a state as part of a comprehensive solution.

In other words, when the Palestinian Authority remains intransigent and doesn’t fulfill its commitments, it acts knowing that the Europeans and perhaps United States will rewrite the rules in its favor. Israel’s interests, which after all include its very survival, are ignored.

The Solana proposal will not be adopted. But let’s remember he is not some undergraduate writing a paper for a course but the EU’s highest-ranking diplomat. In theory, this makes him the second-most important international mediator, after the U.S. secretary of state. Perhaps he doesn’t really intend this proposal to be adapted; he’s merely currying favor with the Arab and Muslim worlds. But that’s the point, isn’t it? He’s playing games with our lives.

With such irresponsibility at the top of democratic states and supposedly seasoned senior diplomats, should anyone blame Israel for being skeptical and indeed disgusted with this whole process?

This is one of the reasons why Israel’s government rejects a freeze on construction on settlements and sees any two-state solution as the final step after an agreement is reached on key issues. If Western countries show there is adult supervision over their foreign policies, perhaps we will really make progress some day.

A British Officer Explains What Counterterrorist Warfare is Like and How Israel Does the Best it Can to Fight in a Humanitarian Way

Several colleagues, including British and French ones, have told me lately the tremendous respect that the militaries and defense ministries in their countries have for Israel's army. A French military magazine recently ran a cover story on how the Israeli air force is the best in the world.

But this isn't just some technical admiration. These people--especially the professional soldiers among them--know just how difficult it is to conduct a war like the one in the Gaza Strip and to behave in a moral way, minimizing civilian casualties. They recognize that nobody tries to do this more than the Israel Defense Forces.

Recently, I had the pleasure of seeing a retired British officer who served in Afghanistan try to explain to European parliamentarians what warfare against terrorists was really like. In an extremely charming and non-offensive manner, he basically said (to an audience whose most frightening experience hitherto was probably when the airconditioning in their office went out) : You people have no idea what you're talking about. Find someone with real military experience to explain to you how hard it is to fight under such conditions.

Such a man is Colonel Richard Kemp who explained in a recent speech well worth reading:

"The IDF face all the challenges that I have spoken about, and more. Not only was Hamas’s military capability deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian population and not only did Hamas employ the range of insurgent tactics I talked through earlier. They also ordered, forced when necessary, men, women and children , from their own population to stay put in places they knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Fighting an enemy that is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people. Deliberately trying to lure you in to killing their own innocent civilians.

"And Hamas, like Hizballah, are also highly expert at driving the media agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

"Their people often have no option than to go along with the charades in front of the world’s media that Hamas so frequently demand, often on pain of death.

"What is the other challenge faced by the IDF that we British do not have to face to the same extent?

"It is the automatic, pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights."

My colleague, Dr. Jonathan Spyer, remarks:

"The interesting thing about Kemp is that at first glance you think that he's extraordinary, and then you realise that he isnt. He's just a sane, professional military man. Which makes you realize just how nuts the terms of debate in Britain and Europe have become."

Iran's Crisis and All Quiet on the Western Front

By Barry Rubin

The Iranian crisis is being fought out on three fronts.

The first, and the one properly receiving the most attention, is inside Iran itself. Commentators have now found the perfect phrase for describing the outcome there: As a result of the stolen election, demonstrations, and repression, Iran will be changed forever.

OK. But changed how? If the regime puts down the demonstrations, it will be ruling lots of deeply dissatisfied citizens. Yet overall, not much will change within the country. Presumably, there will periodically other such upheavals until the day the regime is overthrown altogether. But how long will that take? None can say.

More can be said about the other two fronts. The one changing the least is the regional aspect. Events in Iran will not change minds in the Middle East.

On one side are the radical Islamists. These include pro-Iranian forces--Hamas and Hizballah; the Syrian regime, and many in Iraq--won’t have their minds changed by the post-election upheaval. They will go on being radical Islamists and believe that these demonstrations are creations of American intelligence (whether President Obama praises them or not will have no effect) and that the marches represent only a tiny minority of malcontents.

The same conclusion, however, will be reached by the anti-Iran Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the much smaller base of al-Qaida. They and their supporters will go on seeking Islamist regimes in their countries, notably Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. They won't be affected either.

But there is another factor regarding the Islamist side. In thirty years I have literally never heard an Islamist say—in contrast to how Communists used to speak about the USSR, or China, or Cuba—that they want an Islamist state modeled on Iran. Obviously,  Sunni Islamists (including Hamas) want to downplay any such desire to clone Iran because its Shia republic is alien to their traditions.

And while Hizballah may be the closest of all followers for the Tehran regime, it also does not say that it's dreaming of an (Islamist) green Lebanon, just like the Islamist regime they know in Tehran.
For many years—20, even—Islamists in the Arab world have known that Iran is not a utopian society and that its institutions or practices don't appeal to the Arab masses. They have long learned to dissociate themselves from the social, economic, and cultural policies of Iran—which are already alien by being both Persian and Shia.

So proving that Iran is repressive will not weaken support for Islamism among Arabs. No Islamist in the Middle East is going to say: “Wow, that Iran is a terrible place! I better become a liberal democrat right away!”

Why then do people in the Middle East either follow Iran or have a similar ideological approach to the problems of their societies and states?

Simple: Power. The Iranian regime is strong. It fears no one and projects power. It defies the West and apologizes to no one. It swears allegiance only to Islam—at least in its own interpretation.  It rewards its friends and kills its enemies (I'm tempted--but won't--joke that the West does the exact opposite.) And soon it will have nuclear weapons, too.

Now, how will such people interpret the regime’s no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners, tough-guy approach to internal dissent?

Will they say, as Westerners do—or at least should do—This is terrible! They are beating and repressing people?

Or, will they say: Awesome! Are these guys tough, or what?

Successful repression, like a successful terrorist attack with maximum civilian casualties, brings admiration, not horror in these circles.

But what about all those in the Middle East who hate Islamism and fear Iran? Well, they already feel that way, don’t they? The Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi governments, for example, may not be thrilled with the idea of mass street protests against another government, but they aren’t going to dislike Iran more than they already do. They are hardly surprised by that regime’s behavior. And so is the small minority of Arab liberals. No minds or policies changed here either.

Oh, but there is one aspect of the crisis that might affect their thinking:

Wow, those Westerners sure are afraid of criticizing Iran.

And that brings us to the Western front. Here is the one where change might be most significant.

Will people in western Europe and North America conclude from this that the Iranian regime is mad, bad, and its dangerous if Iran's rulers know how to make nuclear weapons? Are they going to perceive in the adventurous, risk-taking, brutal, and ideologically dizzied regime a true danger to themselves and their countries’ interests? Is the fact that it is a, to coin a phrase, “Tehranical” regime going to translate into an understanding of its foreign policy.

Surely, some of this has got to be sinking in, right?

But quick: how many massive street demonstrations are there in these countries condemning the trampling of the Iranian people’s rights and violent repression in tha tcountry? One-half of the reaction among students, elites, and supposed human rights' supporters to false accusations against Israel? One-fourth? One-eighth? Keep going into even smaller fractions.

And yet, it is here that the biggest and most important effect of the events in Iran might be felt. It isn’t too late to oppose Iran’s ambitions and nuclear weapons’ drive. Are people in democratic states going to wake up about the Iranian regime's threat?

The great danger is that one will be able to say regarding the effect of Iran’s current crisis:

All quiet on the Western front.

Why Does the West Promote the Wrong Side in the Middle East?

By Barry Rubin

Britain's ambassador to Lebanon is meeting today with a Hizballah member of parliament, the first time a Western country has formally held talks with Hizballah since that group's patron, Syria, possibly with some Hizballah help, murdered former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.

This is a concession to Hizballah which has done nothing to deserve it. After all, Hizballah has not abided by the UN ceasefire resolution ending the 2006 war it began against Israel. Nor has it cooperated with the UNIFIL forces in the south, periodically threatening violence against them while rebuilding its military power in the region and smuggling in lots of arms from Syria. And it has continued to subvert Lebanon's state sovereignty by intimidation and the occasional use of force.

On top of all that, Hizballah just lost the election and the governing March 14 movement is rejecting its demand for veto power in the next government. At the moment when the West limits its criticism of Iran's stolen election, the British government undermines the results of Lebanon's fair election by helping to empower the anti-democratic loser, which is also the Tehran regime's client.

No wonder Western policy is the despair of pro-democratic forces and even more moderate dictatorial regimes in the region.

The left is supposed to understand this kind of thing. As the old coal mine union song put it:

"They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair."

The Novelist, The Violent Censors, and The President

By Barry Rubin

Here is all you need to know about the state of the Arabic-speaking world and the illusions of those who pander to these problems rather than help resolve them.

Naguib Mahfouz, the late Egyptian writer, is the greatest novelist the Arabic-speaking world produced. His Nobel Prize in Literature, the only one so far received by writers in that language, symbolizes that fact but is unnecessary to demonstrate his achievement.

Arguably, his best work is Children of the Alley but there’s a problem. Due to certain subtle aspects of the book, it has been deemed sacrilegious by Islamists and many clerics. Mahfouz, in his elder years, was wounded in a failed assassination attempt incited by Islamists, including high-ranking clerics at al-Azhar, the mosque-university.

And so Mahfouz, old and frail, knowing his own society, promised the clerics at al-Azhar, in response to their demand, that he would not allow Children of the Alley to be published in Egypt without their permission. In exchange, they agreed implicitly not to have him murdered. The deal continued to his death by natural causes in his nineties a few years ago.

So let’s sum up. The greatest writer in the Arab world is threatened with murder—and an attempt is made to Implement that threat—and then intimidated by the threat of death into silencing his own book by Islamic clerics including those of al-Azhar in the twenty-first century.

And then the president of the United States comes to Cairo and praises al-Azhar as a center of moderation and Islam as eternally tolerant:

"For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and...[represents along with Cairo university] the harmony between tradition and progress.... Places like Al-Azhar ...carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment."

There’s something out of phase here.

In the Arabic-speaking world, there are the extremist totalitarian forces—mostly but not exclusively Islamist--ranging from al-Qaida, through the regimes of Iran and Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhoods, Hamas and Hizballah.

There are the dictatorial forces in power, in pretty much every country and also the Palestinian Authority.

Far weaker are liberal pro-democratic forces, mostly scattered intellectuals, with a few movements, most important of which is the March 14 group in Lebanon which won the elections there.

If one looks for an intersection between Western decency and interests, the task is to battle the extremists, make necessary deals with the more moderate dictators, and help the liberals.

Praising the persecutors of Mahfouz, emphasizing the similarity between the would-be genocidal regime in Iran and an imperfect but far less aggressive opposition candidate, or rushing to empower by recognition clerical-fascist movements is not the proper road to take.

A Tragedy is Not a Crime: Afghanistan and Gaza

At least 30 and perhaps as many as 150 Afghan civilians have been killed in a U.S. bombing raid on two Western Afghan villages, including many women and children according to the International Read Cross.

This is a tragedy and no one--well, perhaps more accurately, no one outside the Muslim-majority world--would suggest it was done on purpose. This incident is worse than anything that happened during the December-January Gaza war.

The Gaza war was initiated by Hamas which publicly announced it was ending the ceasefire (which it had not been observing all that much any way) and began bombarding Israel at a high rate. Israel responded by sending its forces into Gaza. Hamas used schools and mosques as munition dumps and firing positions. Its headquarters was in a hospital, which it knew Israel would not attack. It used civilians as human shields.

Hamas cynically, and successfully, caused civilian casualties both by starting the war and in its strategy. Incidentally, this is precisely what I predicted beforehand, just to show that the organization's longer-term strategy dictated its indifference to Palestinian lives and accurate understanding of how to manipulate Western media and governments. I urge you to read this December 2008 article to see how this strategy works.

Much of the world condemned Israel. Atrocity stories were fabricated, usually without any evidence at all. Israel was said to be equivalent to Nazi Germany, massive demonstrations were held in Western cities, it was not rare to hear it said that as a result of its—alleged—actions in Gaza, Israel had no right to exist as a country any more. The UN investigated, appointing as the team’s head a radical anti-Israel academic who was already on record for many years as saying that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Needless to say, this is not going to happen to the United States. Yet such incidents should give one pause about the realities of war and what radical forces intent on creating ruthless dictatorships force on those who would oppose them.

According to the Associated Press dispatch:

“Taliban fighters—including Taliban from Pakistan and Iran—massed in Farah province in western Afghanistan, said Belqis Roshan, a member of Farah's provincial council. The provincial police chief, Abdul Ghafar, said 25 militants and three police officers died in that battle near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area near the border with Iran.

“Villagers told Afghan officials that they put children, women, and elderly men in several housing compounds in the village of Gerani—about three miles to the east—to keep them safe. But villagers said fighter aircraft later targeted those compounds, killing a majority of those inside, according to Roshan and other officials.”….

“An Afghan government commission previously found that an August 2008 operation by U.S. forces killed 90 civilians in Azizabad, a finding backed by the UN. The U.S. government originally said no civilians died; a high-level investigation later concluded 33 civilians were killed.“

Now, if this were Israel, much of the would be trumpeting the claim that Israeli leaders lied though—mark this—no Israeli report regarding military operations in the Gaza Strip or West Bank has ever been shown to be false. In contrast, Palestinian claims have repeatedly been discredited.

No one is calling for President Barack Obama and U.S. officials to be brought up on war crimes’ charges.

No one is demanding an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan because of such incidents.

Most obviously of all, while events in Afghanistan could be said to threaten the United States—the September 11 attacks were planned there, after all—the Taliban is not launching rockets and mortars daily on U.S. cities or staging cross-border raids into American territory.

Nor does the Taliban, unlike Hamas’s aims against Israel, have as its main and direct goal the destruction of the United States and the mass murder of its citizens.

NATO forces are also in Afghanistan which means that every time Afghan civilians are killed, most European states are “complicit” in such actions.

Tragic accidents do happen in wartime but Israel’s military does a better job of avoiding them and of honestly investigating any such claims than any other armed force in history.

This doesn’t mean that the United States has no reason to be in Afghanistan—I’ll leave that issue to others—but it does show that Israel and its actions should be considered with a lot more sanity and a lot less bias.

Political Musings: Who's the Real Enemy?

So let me get this straight. The current thinking in large sectors of today's sophisticated, intellectual, and opinion-maker thought in the United States [and West] is as follows:

1. Republicans [insert proper word for European countries] are evil people with whom you have nothing in common. They aren’t really for democracy and are culturally repressive. Many of them are scary religious fundamentalists.

But….

2. The leaders of Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are basically reasonable, pragmatic people who you can work with.

Is that about right?

Do you see anything wrong--and even extremely dangerous--with that world view?

And I’m a registered Democrat myself.

Turkey's New Foreign Minister and Its Foreign Policy Strategy

Ahmet Davutoglu became Turkey’s foreign minister, May 1, after having served as foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan since 2002. He’s the architect of Turkey’s current foreign policy. And that’s not good.

While the 50-year-old Davutoglu played a key role in running the Israel-Syria talks, he also has been central in such policies as: close cooperation with Iran and Syria alongside meeting leaders of Hamas, Hizballah, and the most important anti-American Iraqi militia.

For Davutoglu, this represents a balanced policy between Turkey’s European and Middle Eastern interests. “Our foreign policy regarding the EU is compatible with and in the same systematic framework as our relations with the Middle East,” he said in a June 2008 lecture. But isn’t there a conflict between the way he defines these two policies? After all, Turkey isn’t courting Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, but rather the regional radicals?

The issue is not that Davutoglu is a radical or an Islamist. He is quite thoughtful about balancing Turkish interests and in some ways he seems like a Turkish version of the kind of thinking that typifies the EU. But here’s where the problem lies. By the way, people who have met him say that he is very unfriendly, even contemptuous, toward the United States.

Davutoglu’s belief is that Turkey should have the best possible relations with all its neighbors and especially with those forces that are most threatening. It is the equivalent of the neutralist paradigm during the Cold War. Or, in his words,

“You have to ensure that there are minimum risks around you. Turkey is surrounded by international risks....Throughout the 1990s we had certain problems with almost all of our neighbors. Now we have excellent relations with all of our neighbors.”

It tells a lot about Davutoglu and contemporary Turkey, that he neglected to interpose the ideal quote from Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish republic, here: “Peace at home, peace abroad.” There are also parallels with U.S. President Barack Obama’s world view.

But there is an assumption here that can be called into question, the belief that extremist forces can be defused by dialogue, and that the more radical and aggressive they are, the more dialogue is needed.
In his “four principles” Davutoglu said:

“Security for both sides is vital, since in the Middle East, if we want to have a real peace, security for the Palestinians should be equal to security of Israelis. Security of the Shi’ite Iraqis should be equal to the security of the Sunni Iraqis. Security of the Christian Lebanese should be equal to the security of a Shi’ite or Sunni Lebanese. Security for an Arab should be equal to the security of a Turk or Kurd or anyone. If we don’t have security for all in the region you cannot have security for one particular group or nation or state.”

That makes sense in its own terms. But not everything can be reconciled. To strengthen Hamas, as the current Turkish regime has done, makes security impossible for both Palestinians and Israelis. To back Hizballah, as the Turkish regime has often seemed to be doing, makes security impossible for Lebanese. To work so closely with Iran and Syria as the current Turkish regime does makes security impossible for Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Iraqis, and probably ultimately for Turkey as well.

And as this becomes apparent which side will the Turkish government choose? When the regime foments hatred of Israel and grassroots’ anti-Americanism (despite the warm welcome given to Obama) this goes beyond such neutrality.

Davutoglu applies similar criteria elsewhere:

“We are a huge contributor to NATO - this is our strategic choice. But this will not compromise our relations with Russia. The Cold War is over.”

True, the Cold War is over and Europe-Russia relations are not a zero-sum game. But if Russia advances in the Caucasus and Central Europe through bullying or more militant methods, which side will Turkey choose?

Moreover, if what is happening in the Middle East today is the equivalent of the Cold War--and sometimes even a much hotter one--because of a clash between two blocs, the new Turkish policy is the equivalent to having refused to join NATO and oppose the Soviet threat decades ago.

Finally, he concludes, "Our integration process with the EU is not an alternative to this understanding; its compatible."

He might think so, but will European leaders think so? It might well be true that no matter what Turkey did and does it will not get into the EU as a full member. Yet this policy is making that outcome even more unlikely.

Ideally, Davutoglu’s strategy of being friends with everyone seems an ideal policy for Turkey. But choices will have to be made and already the current regime has been shown to show in which direction it is tilting.

Having been honored by a special visit by Obama and warmly praised by him, one might think that the regime--if Obama's style of diplomacy was going to work in such situations--would have at least refrained (see below) from inviting a stridently anti-American militia leader and appointing a foreign minister who is personally anti-American a few weeks later.

Here are two cases in point regarding how the Turkish regime favors the radical forces.

First, having developed good relations with Iran, which are expanding steadily on the economic front despite international sanctions; backing Hamas and Hizballah, and doing a joint military exercise with Syria (albeit small in scale) the Turkish regime recently played host, May 1-3, to Moqtada al-Sadr, a client of both Syria and Iran whose forces repeatedly attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Even though he holds no official post and is a client of Iran and Syria, Sadr held personal meetings with Turkey's prime minister and president. This is another of many steps showing the Ankara regime's moves closer to the Iran-led alliance. Turkey's government says the meeting was one of a number consulting with all political forces in Iraq.  But clearly Sadr was given red carpet treatment on a level usually accorded a visiting top foreign leader.

In April’s local elections, the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP) suffered some setback but remained the most popular party by a large margin. The opposition remains deeply divided and largely ineffective.

Second, Hussein Jaafar, the main suspect in the April ambush of a Lebanese army unit in the Bekaa Valley, killing four soldiers, was caught crossing from Syria into Turkey with forged Syrian documents. In a case like this, it is reasonable to think that Jaafar was working for the Syrians or at least one of their client groups in one more assault on Lebanon's moderate government. That's how he got the Syrian passport after all. But a Lebanese court had indicted Jaafar and he was wanted in Beirut for questioning.

Presumably, the Syrians will now protect Jaafar and the Lebanese will never get him. Turkey should have extradited him to Lebanon--the man is a Lebanese citizen wanted by the courts in Lebanon--but chose to send him to Syria, knowing the consequences of that choice.

Dissolving in the Two-State Solution

[SUBSCRIBE! And you won't miss any posts :)]

Ring! Ring! The Israeli prime minister’s alarm clock went off. He quickly sat up in bed and immediately shouted out: “Yes! I’m for a two-state solution!”

At breakfast, lunch, and dinner, during his talks and all his meetings, in greeting his staff as he walked down the corridor to the office, endless he repeated that phrase.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the world seems to want from Israeli policy.

It seems a journalistic convention nowadays to misrepresenting what Israel's government (and Israelis say) and avoiding any mention of what they want.

But the fact is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution back in 1997 when he took over in the midst of the Oslo agreement peace process and committed himself to all preceding agreements.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is this: much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

The first problem is that the demand is totally one-sided. Does the PA truly accept a two-state solution? That isn’t what it tells its own people in officials’ speeches, documents of the ruling Fatah group, schools, the sermons of PA-appointed clerics, and the PA-controlled media.

The second problem is that PA compliance with its earlier commitments is pretty miserable, though this is a point that almost always goes unmentioned in Western diplomatic declarations and media.

More often than not the PA’s performance could be called one of anti-confidence-building measures. In other words, what it does makes Israel and Israelis less certain that it is ever going to make a stable and lasting peace.

The third problem is that this leaves no room for asking the question: what does Israel want in exchange for accepting a Palestinian state, leaving West Bank territory, or even agreeing to a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.

How about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state since, after all, the PA Constitution defines its country-to-be as an Arab Muslim state and the PA makes clear that all Jews who have come to live there since 1967 must leave. These stances don’t bother me in principle only the hypocrisy of doing one thing and demanding Israel do another.

How about agreeing—which any nationalist movement should be eager to do—that all Palestinian refugees be resettled in the state of Palestine.

How about accepting that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict?

How about stopping daily incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel in PA institutions?

How about being open to border modifications or security guarantees like not bringing foreign troops onto Palestinian soil?

Aid to the PA is conditioned on absolutely nothing of the sort. These points aren’t even mentioned and Western diplomats and journalists don’t wax indignant about the PA’s intransigence.

In short, Israel is asked to give without getting in return.

The foreign policy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni often consisted of ritual confirmations that yes indeed they favored a two-state solution and couldn’t wait until a Palestinian state came into existence.

That behavior didn’t bother me, though they should have raised Israeli demands more often as well. Still, the problem is—and the great majority of Israelis across the political spectrum understands this—that it brought little benefit. Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, criticism of Israel in defending itself against Hizballah attacks in2006, and the general growing hostility of the Western intelligentsia all took place during the era of “We-favor-a-two-state-solution” repetition.

In the longer-term, the growing demonization of Israel has taken place after it pulled out of the Sinai Peninsula, south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and large parts of the West Bank; offered to accept a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem; let the PLO come in to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including bringing 200,000 Palestinians with it); and provided or permitted the arming of its security forces.Remember that recent history the next time you hear someone say that more Israeli concessions will bring it peace, security, and a good image.

In recent weeks we have still another myth born, that supposedly the Netanyahu government said progress with the Palestinians depends on action against Iran’s nuclear program. This never happened. As Deputy Foreign Ministry Danny Ayalon made clear, this government policy has three themes: negotiations with the PA, stopping Iran’s nuclear program, and improving relations with moderate Arab states.

There’s also a third myth regarding the Arab peace plan. Israeli governments welcomed the plan as a step forward but pointed out two problems preventing them from accepting it. Most important is the demand that any Palestinian who lived or whose ancestors ever lived on what is now Israeli territory can come and live in Israel. This is correctly seen as a ploy to destroy Israel. The other is that borders must be precisely those of 1967. If there’s room for discussion t Israel will discuss this plan; if it’s take-it-or-leave-it, there’s no alternative but the latter.

[A fourth myth growing partly out of the third is that the United States and Israel are at loggerheads. This is based on misrepresenting Israeli policy and misreading Obama administration statements.]

Finally, the fact that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip is no Israeli rationale for refusing concessions but a huge fact of life. How can Israel make peace with “the Palestinians” when the PA has no such mandate? And how could Israel make peace with a Fatah-Hamas PA regime when such a coalition’s effect would not be to moderate Hamas but to make Fatah even more radical.

It’s silly to assure Israel that peace will bring it greater security when it’s unclear whether the Palestinian government would be taken over by Hamas; wage another round of warfare; fire missiles and be “unable to stop” cross-border attacks; and invite in Iranian or Syrian troops. That kind of two-state solution would be far worse than the status quo.

So let’s say it again: If the PA shows itself ready to make and keep a reasonable two-state peace agreement there can be a deal. Let them get two dozen billion dollars of international “compensation” Let the Palestinian people live happily ever after in their Arab, Muslim state with rising living standards.

OK, now what’s in it for Israel?