Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East by Bernard Lewis is Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. This essay is adapted from a lecture given on April 29, 2004, as part of the Robert J. Pelosky, Jr., Distinguished Speaker Series at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

Another, more traditional hurdle is the absence in classical Islamic political thought and practice of the notion of citizenship, in the sense of being a free and participating member of a civic entity. This notion, with roots going back to the Greek polites, a member of the polis, has been central in Western civilization from antiquity to the present day. It, and the idea of the people participating not just in the choice of a ruler but in the conduct of government, is not part of traditional Islam. In the great days of the caliphate, there were mighty, flourishing cities, but they had no formal status as such, nor anything that one might recognize as civic government. Towns consisted of agglomerations of neighborhoods, which in themselves constituted an important focus of identity and loyalty. Often, these neighborhoods were based on ethnic, tribal, religious, sectarian, or even occupational allegiances.

To this day, there is no word in Arabic corresponding to "citizen." The word normally used on passports and other documents is muwatin, the literal meaning of which is "compatriot." With a lack of citizenship went a lack of civic representation. Although different social groups did choose their own leaders during the classical period, the concept of choosing individuals to represent the citizenry in a corporate body or assembly was alien to Muslims' experience and practice.

A democratic spring in the Middle East is not a sure bet.

A democratic spring in the Middle East is very unlikely:
http://www.howestreet.com/mainartcl.php?ArticleId=1170

This article posted for educational and discussion purposes only:

Putin's Historic Trip To Israel
by Joel C. Rosenberg
posted 5/03/05

Russian President Vladimir Putin made history last month with his dramatic trip to Israel. It was the first time any sitting Kremlin leader has ever visited the Jewish State.

Mr. Putin met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Ehud Olmert, as well as with other top Israeli and Palestinian officials. He visited Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, and the Wailing Wall, the last remaining remnant of the Second Jewish Temple. He also visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, buried, and raised from the dead. Then he paid his respects at the burial site of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

The trip was the ultimate photo-op, and made headlines around the world. But it also raised a troubling question: What does Mr. Putin really want in the Middle East?

Just before arriving in Israel, the Russian leader gave a speech in which he described the breakup of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, in part because it left millions of ethnic Russians living outside of the Russian Federation's borders. The comments raised fresh concerns that Mr. Putin has his eye on dramatically expanding Russia's influence?perhaps even her territory?in the oil-rich former Soviet republics of Central Asia and throughout the Middle East.

"Not long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine a visit by the Russian head of state to Israel," Mr. Putin told reporters. "It is a good sign."

Is it really?

The former KGB colonel says he is a partner for peace. During his visit to Cairo before arriving in Jerusalem, Mr. Putin floated the suggestion of holding a Middle East peace conference in Moscow. Yet he was simultaneously unapologetic about selling nuclear technology and fuel to Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States and Israel and without question the most dangerous terrorist state on the planet. He was also unapologetic about selling missiles to Syria, arguably the most dangerous terrorist state in the Middle East after Iran (not to mention a self-described strategic ally of Iran).

One Washington Post headline summed it up rather ominously: "Putin Defends Deals with Syria, Iran."

Mr. Putin further proposed selling new arms to the Palestinian Authority, including helicopters and armored personnel carriers. He did so despite little evidence that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is getting serious about destroying the radical Islamic jihadist movement in his midst, or that Russia is serious about quashing the jihadists who get a good deal of their funding and arms from Iran. Putin was, of course, a longtime ally of Mr. Arafat, the godfather of Palestinian terrorism. He also strongly opposed U.S. efforts to remove the meglomaniacal Saddam Hussein from power.

Thus, when Mr. Putin says, "We are working with Iran for peaceful nuclear purposes," should he be believed? His track record vis-?-vis helping make peace in the Middle East is a bit suspect.

Western intelligence officials believe Iran has been feverishly trying to enrich uranium and build nuclear warheads for the past few years, as well as to develop ballistic missiles capable of delivering such missiles and warheads to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The CIA and the Mossad are also deeply concerned about Iran's capacity to blackmail Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf States who ship oil to the U.S. and the West. How would the free world counter aggressive behavior by Tehran if the Islamic state actually goes nuclear?

Mr. Putin is doing nothing to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Indeed, he is making it easier for the mullahs to acquire the Bomb. Russia and Iran signed a fresh nuclear fuel agreement in March, and last December, Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said Russia would likely build seven new nuclear reactors in Iran at a cost of some $10 billion.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, warned the world not to take any steps to prevent them from completing their nuclear facilities or risk a horrific retaliation. "The Iranian nation does not seek war, does not seek violence and dispute. But the world must know that this nation will not tolerate any invasion," President Mohammad Khatami said in February. "The whole Iranian nation is united against any threat or attack. If the invaders reach Iran, the country will turn into a burning hell for them."

Mr. Khatami, in March of 2001, was the first Iranian President to visit Moscow since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. He came at Mr. Putin's personal invitation, and Mr. Putin has been courting other Islamic leaders as well. In 2003, Crown Prince Abdullah became the first Saudi leader to visit the Kremlin in more than 70 years. Mr. Putin made it a point to address the 10th summit of Islamic states in Malaysia in October 2003. In January 2004, Mr. Putin applied for Russian membership in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In October of that year, Russia announced that Sudan had become a major arms client. Last December, Mr. Putin became the first Russian leader to make a state visit to Turkey in 32 years.

One has to wonder, therefore: Is Mr. Putin's history-making trip to Israel designed to truly build a strong and lasting friendship with the Jewish people? Or was he taking Israel's measure while stalling for time as he builds a strategic alliance with the radicalized Arab and Islamic world?


Joel C. Rosenberg is the New York Times bestselling author of The Last Jihad and The Last Days. His newest political thriller?The Ezekiel Option?about a nuclear alliance between Russia and Iran will be released this summer by Tyndale

This article is posted here for educational and discussion purposes only:

Updated: 12:32 AM EDT
Agents Reportedly Exploiting Rivalry Within al-Qaida
Arabs, Central Asian Compete for Limited Resources, Officials Say
By PAUL HAVEN and KATHERINE SHRADER, AP



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (May 10) - American and Pakistani intelligence agents are exploiting a growing rift between Arab members of al-Qaida and their Central Asian allies, a fissure that's tearing at the network of Islamic extremists as militants compete for scarce hideouts, weapons and financial resources, counterterrorism officials say.

The rivalry may have contributed to the arrest last week of one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants, a Libyan described as al-Qaida's No. 3 and known to have had differences with Uzbeks. Captured Uzbek, Chechen and Tajik suspects have been giving up information about the movements of Arab al-Qaida militants in recent months, four Pakistani intelligence agents told The Associated Press, leading to a series of successful raids and arrests.

"When push comes to shove, the Uzbeks are going to stick together, and the Arabs are going to stick together,'' said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism expert with the Congressional Research Service in Washington. "I think the Uzbek guerrillas have had no home. Some of this could be a battle for survival.''

The Pakistani agents, who hold sensitive jobs in various military and intelligence agencies in several cities, all spoke on condition their names not be used.

U.S. officials declined to comment on the schism. One, however, noted that al-Qaida and its allies do not always function as a cohesive unit. And another cautioned, "There may be a division, but you haven't won anyone over to your side.'' The official spoke on condition his name not be used because of the sensitive topic.

Abu Farraj al-Libbi, the Libyan and top al-Qaida operative, was captured in the northwestern part of Pakistan on May 2 after a fierce gunbattle. Now in Pakistani custody, he's accused of planning two assassination attempts on President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Al-Libbi used Pakistanis, not Central Asians, to carry out the December 2003 attacks on Musharraf - a sign of who he trusted, authorities said. And al-Libbi sent a Pakistani suicide bomber, they said, to try to kill the prime minister in 2004.

An agent in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, the country's equivalent of the CIA, said tensions with the Central Asians began building in late 2001, when hundreds of Arab al-Qaida militants - including possibly bin Laden - poured across the Afghan border into the Pakistani tribal areas of South and North Waziristan.

Hundreds of Central Asians who had fought alongside the Taliban fled across the border, too, joining countrymen who had settled in Waziristan in the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviets.

The official said many new arrivals took up residence in rambling mud-brick compounds run by the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, whose fighters also were hiding in the area. The Arabs settled in different towns in Waziristan, setting up training facilities in Shakai where they trained Pakistani recruits.

Many Central Asians had been living in the region for years without incident. But the flood of Arab al-Qaida suspects brought unwanted attention and problems.

At the same time, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was left rudderless. Its commander and co-founder, Juma Namangani, was reportedly killed in a U.S. bombing campaign in late 2001.

He was replaced by Tahir Yuldash, known as a political philosopher rather than a military leader, said Katzman of the Congressional Research Service.

"They didn't have a strong figure any more to articulate their interests,'' said Katzman, whose agency advises U.S. lawmakers. "They had to rely more on the Arab leaders of al-Qaida.''

The heat began to rise amid a Pakistani military crackdown that flushed many militants out of the region in 2003 and 2004.

The Uzbeks and other Central Asians found themselves competing with Arab members of al-Qaida for hideouts and resources with Arabs having the political and economic advantage, Katzman said.

Adding to the tensions was a lack of trust by senior al-Qaida figures in the Central Asian fighters, said a senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official.

Another Pakistani security agent said the Central Asians "were al-Qaida's foot soldiers, but they were never promoted. They felt ignored. The Central Asians were not happy,'' he added. "Osama bin laden and (his Egyptian deputy) Ayman al-Zawahri only trusted Arabs.''

Increasingly, the two sides began operating independently, often competing for the same money, weapons and dwindling areas of influence among the Pakistani tribesmen. Captured Uzbek, Chechen and Tajik fighters felt far more loyalty to Yuldash than to the Arab al-Qaida men.

The Pakistani intelligence official said it was difficult to get captured Uzbeks to talk about Yuldash, "but it was a lot easier to grill them for clues about the Arabs and their possible hideouts. They felt far less loyalty.''

Another possible motivation for cooperation among captured Central Asians is a fear of being turned over to their home countries, which also have cracked down on Islamic militants.

Information from captive Uzbeks and Chechens - as well as paid informants working with Pakistani and American intelligence - helped authorities carry out a devastating raid on al-Qaida's training camp in Shakai in June 2004, Pakistani officials told AP.

That raid was a turning point, driving al-Qaida militants from their hideouts and making them easier to find.

Several militants, including a nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind who was captured in March 2003 - were arrested in Karachi after the Shakai raid. Ultimately, police seized Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old computer expert whose hard-drives held information about apparent plans to attack Heathrow Airport, financial sites in the United States and other targets.

Khan led authorities to Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian with a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head for his role in the deadly 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. Ghailani, a confidant of al-Libbi, was arrested July 25 after a gunbattle in eastern Pakistan.

Less is known about what led to al-Libbi's arrest.

The Interior Ministry official told AP al-Libbi narrowly escaped arrest in the northwestern city of Peshawar in August 2004, but that authorities never completely lost his trail.

An intercept by U.S. agents of a cell phone call made by al-Libbi reportedly helped Pakistani agents track him down. They lay in wait - some disguised in women's all-encompassing burqas - then pounced as he and a colleague drove by motorcycle across a cemetery in Mardan.

Pakistani security agents say they're confident they have broken al-Qaida's back, although bin Laden and al-Zawahri remain at large.

"Al-Qaida is no longer intact in Pakistan as a network,'' said Gen. Shaukat Sultan, the chief army spokesman. "Every organization needs a command structure and communication, and we have effectively destroyed both of them.''

-----------

Associated Press writers Katherine Shrader in Washington and Paul Haven and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report.


05/10/05 21:45 EDT

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

I'm glad that Al Qaeda is breaking up. Now deal with some of the frustrations and tensions that drive Al Qadea in the first place such as economic exploitation and the need for a Middle East peace.

Originally Posted by Sbarro

I'm glad that Al Qaeda is breaking up. Now deal with some of the frustrations and tensions that drive Al Qadea in the first place such as economic exploitation and the need for a Middle East peace.

I'm sure the eradication of the "Zionist Entity" would be your solution.

Every state, including Israel, has an internationally recognized legal right to exist. The correct question is do you espouse Israel swallowing up the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a larger Isaeli state taht will become nonZionist in a few years with a Palestinian majority?

If you do, I question if you really support Zionism since it goes against Zionist interests.

Originally Posted by Sbarro

Every state, including Israel, has an internationally recognized legal right to exist. The correct question is do you espouse Israel swallowing up the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a larger Isaeli state taht will become nonZionist in a few years with a Palestinian majority?

If you do, I question if you really support Zionism since it goes against Zionist interests.

Most Israelis support a two state solution. If the Palestinians would stop bombing civilians, they would get their state.

Originally Posted by Sbarro

Every state, including Israel, has an internationally recognized legal right to exist. The correct question is do you espouse Israel swallowing up the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a larger Isaeli state taht will become nonZionist in a few years with a Palestinian majority?

If you do, I question if you really support Zionism since it goes against Zionist interests.

I support the three state solution. I do not think Israel should annex the territories for a number of reasons, including the one you mentioned. But I also do not think the Palestinians are capable of statehood.

I think the West Bank should be reacquired by Jordan and the Gaza Strip reacquired by Egypt. After these bonafide nation-states take care of the problems the Palestinians can't seem to handle themselves, then everyone can discuss some kind of "Palestinian" state if they still wish to.

And regarding the Golan Heights, Assad can go play with himself.

And you can go back to hating your own kind.

I have abandoned anti-Zionist positions and have evolved into a moderate leftist. I won't explain why to you but my positions on many issues have changed. But you have to recognize grievances on both sides to have peace. Both Israelis and Palestinians are victims in their ow ways. Ray Hanania, a Palestinian American, wrote a column calling on Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel and abandon the refugee claims inside pre-1967 Israel. Unfortunately, the voice of groups like Hamas on one side and Sharansky on the other side prevent moderate voices that seek accomodation from being heard. And then you have the Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaughs, and others who cheerlead for new crusades abroad and apologize for each and evry action of the Sharon government. I won't even mention the creationists in our political system like in Kansas or on this website.

Originally Posted by Sbarro

I have abandoned anti-Zionist positions and have evolved into a moderate leftist. I won't explain why to you but my positions on many issues have changed. But you have to recognize grievances on both sides to have peace. Both Israelis and Palestinians are victims in their ow ways. Ray Hanania, a Palestinian American, wrote a column calling on Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel and abandon the refugee claims inside pre-1967 Israel. Unfortunately, the voice of groups like Hamas on one side and Sharansky on the other side prevent moderate voices that seek accomodation from being heard. And then you have the Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaughs, and others who cheerlead for new crusades abroad and apologize for each and evry action of the Sharon government. I won't even mention the creationists in our political system like in Kansas or on this website.

I can't say as I disagree with much (if anything) in this post.

How about it, Sean?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Sbarro

I have abandoned anti-Zionist positions and have evolved into a moderate leftist. I won't explain why to you but my positions on many issues have changed. But you have to recognize grievances on both sides to have peace. Both Israelis and Palestinians are victims in their ow ways. Ray Hanania, a Palestinian American, wrote a column calling on Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel and abandon the refugee claims inside pre-1967 Israel. Unfortunately, the voice of groups like Hamas on one side and Sharansky on the other side prevent moderate voices that seek accomodation from being heard. And then you have the Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaughs, and others who cheerlead for new crusades abroad and apologize for each and evry action of the Sharon government. I won't even mention the creationists in our political system like in Kansas or on this website.

I can't say as I disagree with much (if anything) in this post.

How about it, Sean?

Answering out of turn, I say:

• Well, I think Pizza Man is still a bit too far left to be a 'moderate leftist', but the rest is OK. The Palestinians need to run their own affairs, or they will always be restive and a source of disaffected militants. How that comports with the Israel of today and the politics of the extremes, I don't know. I do know that the extremists on both sides need to either cool it, or be taken to their respective wood sheds for attitude adjusts of the corporal kind.
  
  We can help some with assets and support, both political and moral, but the rest is up to the two sides.

So I'll second Kiff's olive branch. Sean?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Sbarro

I have abandoned anti-Zionist positions and have evolved into a moderate leftist. I won't explain why to you but my positions on many issues have changed. But you have to recognize grievances on both sides to have peace. Both Israelis and Palestinians are victims in their ow ways. Ray Hanania, a Palestinian American, wrote a column calling on Palestinians to accept the existence of Israel and abandon the refugee claims inside pre-1967 Israel. Unfortunately, the voice of groups like Hamas on one side and Sharansky on the other side prevent moderate voices that seek accomodation from being heard. And then you have the Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaughs, and others who cheerlead for new crusades abroad and apologize for each and evry action of the Sharon government. I won't even mention the creationists in our political system like in Kansas or on this website.

I can't say as I disagree with much (if anything) in this post.

How about it, Sean?

Answering out of turn, I say:

• Well, I think Pizza Man is still a bit too far left to be a 'moderate leftist', but the rest is OK. The Palestinians need to run their own affairs, or they will always be restive and a source of disaffected militants. How that comports with the Israel of today and the politics of the extremes, I don't know. I do know that the extremists on both sides need to either cool it, or be taken to their respective wood sheds for attitude adjusts of the corporal kind.
  
  We can help some with assets and support, both political and moral, but the rest is up to the two sides.

So I'll second Kiff's olive branch. Sean?

There's two things here. One, is Pizza Man reformed? Two, what of his post above?

On the first, Great! . . . if true. :?

On the second, it all sounds good, but I am not convinced the Palestinians are capable of getting things under control. The PA has proven again and again that they can't control Hamas, and indeed, Hamas' influence is growing. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think Hamas recognizes Israel.

Though the "three state" solution I mentioned isn't talked about much, I've heard rumblings, esp. on the Jordanian end. Regardless it makes sense to me. If the PA cannot assert control and it's not a good idea for Israel to do it (it would be perceived as "genocide") then how about other Arab nations? I mean, until 1967 Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was Jordanian. If other Arabs can assert control, then things can either stay in the 3 state dynamic or a two state solution can then be discussed.

In short, I agree that a two-state solution would be good, I just don't see how to get there without getting creative. Would having Egyptian and Jordanian forces taming Hamas be fun and full of human love? Ah, no. But seriously, I don't see how it could work otherwise. The ONLY other option I see is having Hamas take over the PA in democratic elections and hope they grow into the role, like the PLO kinda did. But that may take decades and we could have a genocidal war in the meantime anyway. Yuck.

In the spirit of compromise, I might add that the Israeli government needs to grow another gonad (or two) and eliminate almost all of the settlements east of the security wall. If the religous wackjobs won't leave, arrest them. If they go back in, let the Palestinians eat them. I mean, what else can be done??

On last thing. If I were President, I'd sit the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the PA down, and say, "If you don't do all of the above, your money is cut off. Period. Oh, and we'll renounce the trade agreements too. Now do as your told, fix this mess, or so help me I'll ruin you.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

In the spirit of compromise, I might add that the Israeli government needs to grow another gonad (or two) and eliminate almost all of the settlements east of the security wall. If the religous wackjobs won't leave, arrest them. If they go back in, let the Palestinians eat them. I mean, what else can be done??

Nothing. Most of the twisting and turning in the Israeli government over the last dozen years has been the slow and painful death among rational people of the dream of conquering all of Eretz Yisroel. It can't be done without genocide, and having been on the receiving end of genocides, the Israelis as a people can't quite bring themselves to commit one (except in the last defense of Israel itself). You didn't have nearly as much pain in giving up the Sinai settlements, because Sinai wasn't really Eretz Yisroel, it was in fact the place of exile.

It has finally reached the point where they are willing to give up the Gaza settlements... and even that is tearing them up.

In the absence of other factors, I would expect parallel Israeli and Palestinian civil wars over the desirability of continuing the Arab-Israeli wars. Sharon and Abbas are in parallel positions with respect to groups desiring to continue the war... the only difference being that Hamas, having been excluded from government by Arafat, is only now beginning to realize the impossibility of both continuing the war and achieving anything concrete for the Palestinian people.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

On last thing. If I were President, I'd sit the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the PA down, and say, "If you don't do all of the above, your money is cut off. Period. Oh, and we'll renounce the trade agreements too. Now do as your told, fix this mess, or so help me I'll ruin you.

Funny, Tom Friedman said the same thing today in regard to Europe over Iran and China over North Korea.

I get the feeling that once everyone is in Crisis mode, a lot of decisions like that are going to be made...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I get the feeling that once everyone is in Crisis mode, a lot of decisions like that are going to be made...

Indeed.

The Palestinians might be exempt from the saeculum since they always seem to be in Fourth Turning mode- thanks ot their incompetent leaders, of which Abbas is just the latest. Really, though, it would seem that they have been in Fourth Turning mode since the Intifadah started. Abbas is clearly a Silent managerial type but considering the Compromiser leadership that the US had in the 1850s as it was drifting towards Crisi that means relatively little. The 1948 Nakbah, as they would call it, is something like their equivalent to our World War II period since they apparently didn't experience a real Fourth Turning War during World War II itself but watched it from the sidelines. The Jews in Palestine, though, who were living there during World War II saw it thanks to many compromising with what they saw as the devil and serving in the army of the same government that had issued its white paper a year or two earlier against the near certain fate of annhilation if Rommel got to Alexanderia followed by Tel Aviv. Sorry for these run on sentences. Arafat was a kind of GI for the Palestinians since they are probably a few years behind on the cycle.

Another thing to note about the Palestinians are that the leaders of Hamas and the rising generation within the Fatah movement both seem to be Prophets who are their equivalent to our "fire and brimstone" Boomers. I don't have statistics to back up my contention but from anectodes in new reports it appears that the rising generation of forty and fifty something Palestinian leaders are itching to take over from the likes of Abbas and the recently expired Arafat.

Hamas is coming into the PA which is somelike our Christian coalition taking power and Fatah is taking on a more religious (Islamist) hue which is somewhat comparable to John Kerry (or Hillary CLinton) discovering faith. No, these are not exact moral comparisons. But they do illustrate where on the saeculum they are. Pronbably about where we are. The Israelis also seem to be in similar Fourth Turning mode although with Sharon likley to be at the helm for awhile, and he is definitely a Silent or maybe even their equivalent ot a GI, those hoping for a full Israeli crushing of any Intifadah are likely to be disappointed for awhile.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... I am not convinced the Palestinians are capable of getting things under control. The PA has proven again and again that they can't control Hamas, and indeed, Hamas' influence is growing. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think Hamas recognizes Israel.

The PA, until recently, was the enforcement arm of Arafat Enterprises. Arafat never had any intention of compromise, because that alone would have ended his political career. Rabble-rousers don't govern - at least not very well.

We'll see if Abbas is different.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... Though the "three state" solution I mentioned isn't talked about much, I've heard rumblings, esp. on the Jordanian end. Regardless it makes sense to me. If the PA cannot assert control and it's not a good idea for Israel to do it (it would be perceived as "genocide") then how about other Arab nations? I mean, until 1967 Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was Jordanian. If other Arabs can assert control, then things can either stay in the 3 state dynamic or a two state solution can then be discussed.

I don't see anyone wanting a three-state solution, except the Israelis, perhaps. Pulling the Palestinians into an imposed, submissive position to another Arab entity only transfers some of the enmity to them. Why would either Jordan or Egypt want that? They already have problems with home-grown Isalmists.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... In short, I agree that a two-state solution would be good, I just don't see how to get there without getting creative. Would having Egyptian and Jordanian forces taming Hamas be fun and full of human love? Ah, no. But seriously, I don't see how it could work otherwise. The ONLY other option I see is having Hamas take over the PA in democratic elections and hope they grow into the role, like the PLO kinda did. But that may take decades and we could have a genocidal war in the meantime anyway. Yuck.

In a truly independent Palestine, I say, let 'em run. Hamas is respected by the Palestinians for its good works, but is not likely to get a lot of support if its agenda is all Jihad, all the time. If it does, then we make it clear that an integral part of the deal is peace, and we'll tromp on the first to violate that.

Of course, that doesn't solve the Hezbollah issue, which is really external.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... In the spirit of compromise, I might add that the Israeli government needs to grow another gonad (or two) and eliminate almost all of the settlements east of the security wall. If the religous wackjobs won't leave, arrest them. If they go back in, let the Palestinians eat them. I mean, what else can be done??

That's the price of peace. Israelis have to know that the settlements are dead, but they are as enthralled by their crazies as the Paletinians are by theirs.

The order to pack and move should be, "Pack and move, now!" We can help with relocation costs. It'll be cheaper for us in the long run.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... On last thing. If I were President, I'd sit the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the PA down, and say, "If you don't do all of the above, your money is cut off. Period. Oh, and we'll renounce the trade agreements too. Now do as your told, fix this mess, or so help me I'll ruin you.

I agree - that's in the cards. I dont' see Bush being the one to do it, though. We need to grow a 'full set', too.

by Douglas Davis Then unplug your computer and throw away your mobile phone.




Pay attention, Professor. If you support the proposed academic boycott of Israel -- and if you are to remain intellectually honest -- prepare for a radical lifestyle change. Firstly, unplug your computer. Good. Now switch off your interactive digital television set. Well done. And now throw away your mobile phone. Excellent.

You see, Professor, these machines are not only the engine of the globalized, capitalist world but they also depend on technologies that have been produced by Israeli academics in the Zionist entity.

Stop playing with your detached mouse, Professor, and concentrate. I'm afraid you may not use the British Library because it has been computerized by Ex Libris, a Zionist company that was spawned by the odious Hebrew University of Jerusalem. And if, God forbid, you develop problems of the small intestine, you may not pop the Zionist-invented 'video capsule', which passes naturally through your body as it monitors this delicate piece of your anatomy...

All this boycotting, you see, is the logical extension of proposed academic sanctions against Israel by some members of the British Association of University Teachers (AUT). Just visit the website of Egyptian-born Mona Baker of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. She set the standard by firing two Israeli scholars from the boards of her translation journals as a matter of high academic principle.

You will see that Ms Baker's ambitions do not end with the academic boycott. Her website also includes a section entitled 'Boycott Israeli Products & Services', which features dozens of global brands that, inconveniently, are not Israeli at all. The offenders presumably have earned their place in infamy by dealing with the Zionist entity, by being owned by Jews or by having Jews on their boards. They range from Coca-Cola and Nescafe to Johnson & Johnson and Estee Lauder, from Hugo Boss and Ralph Lauren to Selfridges and Marks & Spencer, from Kleenex and Wonderbra to Lancome and.... All marked for boycott.

Absent from Ms Baker's list -- and here I think I can help -- is a set of global companies which are arguably even more culpable because they not only operate in Israel but also do most of their R&D there. IBM and Intel each have three R&D centres in Israel; Microsoft established its first non-American facility there, and Cisco Systems has built its only non-American R&D center in Israel. Then there is Motorola, which has its largest R&D site in Israel, and News Corp, whose company NDS develops those neat interactive technologies for digital television. There are many more.

The AUT boycott brigade has cause for concern. It knows that these companies are attracted not only by the innate brutality of the expansionist regime but also by the cunning of its university graduates (most of the R&D centers are located on or near Israeli university campuses). Proportionally, the Zionist entity has more university graduates than any other country, while its scientists, engineers and agriculturists publish more professional papers per capita than do their counterparts anywhere else on earth. The result is that Israel has the largest concentration of high-tech companies outside Silicon Valley. But the ultimate sin is that Israel, which came to independence in the process of post-war decolonization, stubbornly refuses to become a failed state.

So dangerous has the situation become, dear Professor, that when the AUT met in Eastbourne last week, the issue that preoccupied you was the aggressive imperialist apartheid state: a state that has nurtured the Palestinian universities and colleges in the West Bank; one that offers equal rights - and access to its universities - to all its citizens, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sex; and which has educated tens of thousands of Palestinians at Israeli universities (several hundred a year still opt for an Israeli education). It is significant that Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian who is encouraging you and your British comrades to boycott Israel, is a doctoral student at none other than Tel Aviv University.

No, Professor, not all Israeli universities and not all Israeli academics will be boycotted if the AUT motion is passed. Such a proposition was defeated 3-1 at the association's conference two years ago, and the boycotters are too smart to repeat past mistakes. The new motion, says one of its authors, has been 'tactically' amended to get it passed. 'We've got to be a bit more sophisticated,' she says. And sophisticated they are. They even had a dry run last December, when they met to rehearse their presentations and develop killer responses to potential critics.

Their sleek new motion -- which does not involve a single book-burning -- envisages sanctions against only the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv University and Haifa University. And there's more: the boycotters generously offer Israeli academics the opportunity to buy themselves immunity if they are prepared to denounce their country, specifically, 'conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies'. Who could seriously question the integrity of your fellow academic freedom fighters?

But there are, of course, small obstinate obstacles in the way of you visionaries, Professor. Britain's academic institutions, for example, have not endorsed boycotting Israel's academic community. Indeed, when the Oxford don Andrew Wilkie told an Israeli PhD applicant that there was 'no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army', he was hauled before the university's disciplinary body and suspended without pay for two months.

Cambridge University's Professor Sir Aaron Klug, Nobel laureate and former president of the Royal Society, put me right when I asked him about the possible impact -- on Britain no less than on Israel -- of such a boycott: 'How important is the AUT? That's the question you have to ask.' He is no supporter of Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and his policies but he does consider that the proposed boycott is 'ill considered and doesn't promote anything at all'. The AUT, he says, is out to attack Israel 'but this is no way to proceed'. Sir Aaron is 'not one who looks for anti-Semitism around every corner,' he says, 'but I do think there's an element of that here. It does give people who are anti-Semitic the opportunity to express themselves.'

But relax, Professor. The AUT has solemnly concluded that there is a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. They don't mind Jews. They just detest the Jewish state.

Originally appeared in The Spectator

'Enemy on enemy' fire signals split among insurgents in Iraq

"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the jihadists' grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."

The nationalist insurgent groups "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.

The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change.

For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target.

A secular Zionist Jewish state, not a messianic zionist one

And in Iraq, what does President Bush think we are defeating. Hw do you defeat an insurgency? IF one insurgent dies, then another fanatic will gladly blow himself up.

I don't agree with Uri Avnery's equating the settlers with fascist dictators from the 30's. They certainly are pawns in a larger effort that was originally due to Sharon who now wants to reign them in.

bUT IDEOLOGIES DUE TAKE ON THEIR OWN momentum and the most fanatical zealots of an ideology can advocate something nthat even the cynical founders of these ideologies, such as Sharon, did not advocate. OF course, people like Sharon have used the right wing settlers for their own cynical ends to power and don't care about the welfare of the people whose cause they claim to have championed at some point.





The Day After the Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza

By Uri Avnery

Gush Shalom, June 27, 2005



This week, Israel was shocked by a terrifying train accident. A heavy truck was crossing the tracks as a train approached at high speed. The locomotive driver saw the truck but could not stop in time. The truck driver saw the train but couldn't get off the track in time. Result: many killed, many hurt, a scene of destruction.

Something similar to this accident is looming now, with the Gush Katif withdrawal getting closer. The settlers' train is rapidly approaching the fateful junction. Only by a miracle can the settlers brake in time. Only by a miracle will the fatal crash be avoided.

As things look now, it seems probable that the crash will bring about the greatest change in the history of Israel since the 1967 war.

The settlers cannot and do not want to stop. They are lusting for battle. They are sure of their power. Many years of secret cooperation have convinced them that the ruling group of the state, army officers and civil servants, are with them. They treat the opposite camp with contempt. They despise the democratic majority much as the fascist dictators of the 30s despised the "degenerate and rotten" democracies.

Even if the settlers wanted to stop their train, like that unfortunate locomotive driver, they would not be able to do so. It is in the nature of fanatical movements that they spawn groups that are more fanatical, which in turn give birth to groups that are even more extreme. They cannot rein in their offspring, and the fringe elements dictate the pace. Somebody will start the violence, somebody will open fire. The thousands of admirers of Yigal Amir, Rabin's assassin, are thirsting for their share of glory.

The democratic majority is indeed feeble and piteous. It watches events like the crowd at a football game. The struggle for the future of the state and its inhabitants has become a spectator sport. But that can also change quite suddenly, if things happen that shock the ordinary Israeli out of his lazy equanimity. When the first soldier is killed by a settler, for example.

What then? Suddenly the Israeli, who has been dozing in front of the TV set, a beer glass in one hand and the other in a bag of nuts, will be wide awake. He will realize that this is not a soccer match, that it concerns him and his family. That a gang of messianic rabbis and nationalist thugs is taking control of his life and turning his country into a Jewish Taliban state.

True, it may not happen. After the assassination of Rabin by a messianic rightist who was a disciple of the settlers and a student at the religious Bar-Ilan University, there was an opportunity to break the fatal hold of the extreme right on the state. It did not happen. Shimon Peres, in his folly, prevented an immediate showdown at the polls. The majority let itself be seduced by the siren call for "conciliation", a trap set by the right-wing in order to escape its destruction.

But, the way it looks now, there is a high probability that the clash will indeed take place. Who will win?

The forces are not equal.

On the one side, there is a delirious minority in a trance, with an inspiring nationalist-messianic ideology and a strong, united leadership.

This camp has a standing army and ample reserve forces that can be called up at a moment's notice. In the settlements there are some 200 thousand men and women, old people and children, a great may of whom (including children and even babies) are available for action at all times. Many of them are ex-soldiers, and most of them are armed to the teeth. In the "arrangement yeshivot", the Habad institutions and other religious seminaries, there is additional manpower, ready to be mobilized. A significant number of individuals are ready to rush to their help.

On the other side, no organization and no leadership. People congregate and complain in their living rooms on Friday nights, they wallow in a warm and comfortable jacuzzi of despair. People like myself, who have spent years in a vain effort to get them into the streets, to organize demonstrations, to stiffen their spine and arouse their spirit, certainly entertain no exaggerated hopes.

But a democratic public can surprise, as the rightist dictators found out in World War II. Ariel Sharon discovered this after the massacres of Sabra and Shatila, when hundreds of thousands of "apathetic" people streamed into the square in a storm of emotions.

If this happens again, the democratic majority will win. The settlers' darkest nightmare will become reality: the call for the removal of the Gush Katif settlements will develop into a campaign for the evacuation of the settlements from the West Bank. Effective American pressure, too, could suddenly materialize. In such a whirlwind, Sharon's intentions and plans and tricks - and perhaps the man himself, too - will become irrelevant. The dynamism of the process will carry him along like a piece of driftwood before the tsunami.

That may happen. But it is far from assured. The locomotive driver may still stop at the last moment. Democracy may still manage to get off the tracks. It may end the way the Weimar Republic ended. The "disengagement" may still be postponed. Maybe.

Only one thing is certain: that nothing is certain. Nobody can predict the situation on the Day After.

But we are not sitting in a theater, waiting for the fifth act in order to find out how the play will end. Every person in Israel is an actor in this piece, both by his actions and inactions, whether he wants it or not.

People with a developed democratic consciousness - peace activists, human rights activists, social activists, activists of democratic associations - have an important task in this drama. Their task is to arouse the majority from its sleep, to get them into the streets, to strengthen their resolve to defend democracy and to stand up against the attack of the nationalist-messianic right. They have to hold up, high and shining, the alternative, the other option, so that it is before the eyes of the majority at all times.

For example: In the streets, a War of the Colors is now being waged. The settlers, who have adopted the color orange, have not succeeded in "painting the country orange", as they have boasted, but orange ribbons do fly from many car antennas. On the other side, there have been several initiatives to fly another ribbon, but, as so often happens with democrats, everything was done without organization and without the minimum cooperation, here blue ribbons, there blue-white ribbons, there green ones. A mess.

But this is, perhaps, the first sign. The democratic public rises slowly. It's always like that. One has to push.

My nose detects a change. It is an intoxicating smell, like the scent of oleander and margosa now flooding our streets.

I have a sharpened sense of smell for big changes. At the age of 10, I experience a total change in my life: country, climate, language, culture, name and character - everything changed. Since then, I have been open to drastic changes and am ready for them at every moment. I experienced such changes at least two more times: the 1948 war with the founding of Israel and the 1967 war with the creation of the Israeli Empire. It may well be that my nose picks up an approaching change earlier than many others, just as certain animals sensed the approaching tsunami before human beings.

There is the chance of a new start in Israel, far beyond the "disengagement" tricks and Sharon's ploys. There is a possibility that the Day After may open great new possibilities, those that many have already despaired of: a readiness to end the occupation, to achieve peace with a measure of reconciliation and mutual respect, and, most important of all: to renew the face of Israel itself as a democratic, liberal, secular and egalitarian state.

Of course, that will not fall from heaven. It depends, more than on anything else, on our belief that this day can indeed come.

As we used to sing: "Don't say: the day will come / Bring the day!"

Years ago, at a time when the '67 War was still fairly fresh in people's memories, someone asked Pres. Nixon (who was always a staunch supporter of Israel) what he thought Israel's long-term survival prospects were. Proving himself to be a realist as well as pro-Israel, he stuck out his arm, thumb held flat, and slowly turned it down. (For those of you who aren't familiar with Roman history, that gesture by an Emperor or provincial governor would condemn a defeated gladiator to a swift death at the hands of the victorious gladiator.)

ATOMIC HONESTY
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
August 8, 2005
August 8, 2005 -- IF it looks like a duck, cackles like a duck and flies like one, could it be anything other than a duck? This is the question that some of those interested in Iran's nuclear program have been asking for some time.

The official line from Tehran has been that the program has solely peaceful purposes. Yet two events last week show that this Iranian discourse is the product of the old tradition of dissimulation known as "kitman." Put simply, this means hiding one's beliefs and practices in hostile environments and at hostile times.

The first event was a long letter of resignation from Hassan Rouhani to the outgoing President Muhammad Khatami. As secretary of the High Council of National Defense, Rouhani had headed the Islamic Republic's negotiating team with the European Union over Iran's nuclear program. Those negotiations led to a series of accords under which Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium-enrichment program in exchange for EU economic and diplomatic support. (Iran rejected the latest EU offer over the weekend.)

Part of Rouhani's 6,000-word letter of resignation has been leaked in Tehran. He makes two points clear.

First, the decision to acquire a nuclear "surge capacity" was taken 16 years ago, but the process was accelerated in 2003 as the leadership in Tehran feared that America, having toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, would immediately move to bring about regime change in Iran as well. ("surge capacity" means having the scientific knowledge, machinery and material needed to produce nuclear weapons without actually making any.)

Rouhani's letter hints that the Islamic Republic has already secured a good part of the "surge capacity" it wants — that is, that Tehran could start building nuclear warheads within a matter of months. It also shows that the decision to engage the Europeans in negotiations was taken as a tactic to prevent the United States from building a coalition against the Islamic Republic.

The second point in the letter is that the leadership was divided into two groups: the accommodationists and the confrontationists.

The accommodationists wanted to practice "kitman," divide the Europeans and the Americans and drag on the process of negotiations until the end of the Bush presidency. They argued that once Dubya was out of the White House, his successor would revert to the traditional U.S. policy of waving a big stick without using it. All Iran needed to do, in the meantime, was to keep the Europeans happy with negotiations, and the Russians and Chinese licking their lips at the prospect of juicy contracts with Iran.

The confrontationists, on the other hand, opposed engaging Europe in negotiations on what they saw as Iran's domestic affairs.

A speech in Tehran by a key spokesman for the confrontationists, Muhammad-Javad Larijani (aka Ardeshir), is the second telling event: He castigated the Khatami administration for negotiating with Europeans (Britain, France and Germany).

"In handling our nuclear dossier, we have committed strategic errors," Larijani claimed. "We allowed the locus of the argument to shift from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the European Union. We had an argument with the United Nations, not with three of the most savage powers on earth. We allowed the EU to meddle in what was not its business."

Larijani, who is tipped to get a senior post under new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who was inaugurated Saturday), also insisted that Iran should be prepared to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether to safeguard its right to develop nuclear weapons if and when it so desired.

"We have bloodthirsty foes like the United States and Israel who could attack us with all they have," Larijani said. "Why should we deny ourselves any category of weapons just to please the savage European powers?"

The European policy towards Iran has often been described "sticks and carrots." That policy was based on the assumption that the new president would prove as keen on "carrots" as Khatami. But last June's election gave victory to a man who is not interested in any European "carrots" and is manifestly not afraid of their metaphorical "sticks" either.

Larijani is right. The Europeans had no business intervening in what was an issue between Tehran and the United Nations. The logical course now is to scrap Europe's sideshow and allow the IAEA to deal with the Islamic Republic as a signatory of the NPT.

The row over Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions is not the cause of the current tension in relations between Iran and the major Western powers. The real cause is that Iran intends to reshape the Middle East after its own fashion, and that clashes with the Bush administration's vision for the region.

"The Middle East can have either an American future or an Islamic one led by Iran," Ahmadinejad said during the presidential campaign.

Ahmadinejad is expected to unveil the Islamic Republic's vision for a new Middle East in his address to U.N. General Assembly in September. It will be up to America and its allies to decide whether they can afford to let the Islamic Republic set the agenda in the region.

Ahmadinejad's great merit, so far, is that he refuses to play "kitman."

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is member of Benador Associates.

Progress upon the Hellespont: Black is "red" and white is "blue" in Carnivore Islamistan

Underwear clad meat eaters battle bikini-ed fish tasters

If the kebab is the staple food of Anatolia, the white Turks native to Istanbul prefer sea bass, bluefish and other delicate catches of the two seas that bracket the city and the Bosporus Strait in between. And this, too, has caused consternation.

But while the men were branded as offensive for being undressed, their wives were deemed unsuitable for wearing the long cloaks favored by religious Muslim women. Modern Turkey, though 99 percent Muslim, was founded in 1923 as a secular republic, and was led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the dashing military hero who conceived the nation-state from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. Ataturk embraced the French definition of secularism -- not so much neutral toward all faiths as antagonistic toward public expressions of the dominant religion.

You are what you eat (and wear) in Eurasia! :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Could Iraq lead to regional war?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sau...982230843.html

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Could Iraq lead to regional war?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sau...982230843.html

But HC told us things "were going as well as could be expected". So I'm not worried. :wink:

What a mess.