TEL AVIV JOURNAL MAY 11, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There’s just so much press attention the Arab world can receive before even obsessives like me begin to tire of its frenzy, pitilessness, and perfidy. Yes, endless repetition of violence and violation can also seem routine. Which, to tell you God’s honest truth, they are. There is a great deal of exactitude behind this morbid fact. Still, the present upheavals in their cumulative impact are deadening. Not only to the victims of the regimes but to their observers, commentators, rapporteurs.
Actually, many of these observers, perhaps most, are infatuated with the Arabs. But infatuation is really a variant on infantilization. The torment now spreading in the Arab world, however, is an evidential repudiation of this view, a cardinal attribute of which is that whatever difficulties obtained in the vast space from the Maghreb to the outskirts of Baghdad are attributable to Israel, in particular, and maybe even to the Jews, in general. This was very convenient in that it matched with the traditional bigotries of Western diplomatic elites. Yet it had a contemporary ring to it—from Barack Obama’s pastor to the increasingly monolithic editorial view of the liberal press.
One of the reasons that this is so is that this is a field where knowledge is certainly arcane, if not deliberately suppressed. Given the phantasmagoric nature of Arab governmental documents, would you trust material from official archives? In addition to all of this is the haste and fashion of news itself. The “experts” simply do not know much about the topics on which they have to and do pretend expertise. Many who report and interpret for us know exactly zero about their quickly changing subjects. For most, a one-page memo or a quick update will do. Syria is a case in point. I would bet that some of the authoritative press people don’t know the difference between Hama, a town the population of which Bashir Assad’s father, Hafez, bombed to smithereens and killed some 10,000 to 40,000 (a difference that maybe should make a difference) Sunnis in the process, and Hamas, the governing terrorist organization in Gaza that is itself Sunni but is willing to make alliances with anybody—that is, Turks, the Shia of Iran, and the secularized Alawites in Damascus—as long as they are antagonists, loathing antagonists, of Israel. In this sentence alone lay a thousand facts and factoids. And don’t forget that between Turkey and Syria lies a land dispute with a long past and passions aplenty to match it.
What, for that matter, do even the professionals know about the Berbers of North Africa, players in the ongoing Libyan war and the more-or-less pacified Tunisian troubles, too? And what role will they play when disturbance turns to real chaos in Algeria and perhaps Morocco, where Berbers are really numerous but also where an Arab census is not a census at all? (There are no believable numbers for present-day Lebanon where the last calculus was taken in 1932, ten years before the Vichy government terminated the post-World War I French Mandate.) But Algeria will be the real doozey. First, the Algerians threw out the French; then millions of them left for France; now they are competing for France itself They hate one another at home with a civil war in their near history that took about a quarter of a million lives while almost no one was watching. Do you recall the long civil war? No, not the “heroic” one depicted in The Battle of Algiers where “the good guys” won and the French soldiers and the pieds noirs were all Nazis. Yes, I mean the other one that dragged on for a decade between the Salafists and the military regime. Oh, you didn’t notice. Well, the army won. Had the Islamists triumphed it would have been, if anything, much worse. Like Khomeini’s Persia without the pretentious theology but with more blood.
Actually, it is Syria where outside ignorance and inattention have reaped for the regime enormous latitude over the years. And enormous latitude now when it has over just about a month murdered a thousand people, maybe more. Not exactly its own people, by the way, but that is how things are in the body counts of tyrannies. How many wounded have been picked off by snipers (here acting as random rather than precise killers) nobody really knows. But the scandal of this all is the fact that the presidency of Barack Obama has been more or less allied with the dictatorship since it came to power, a part of the liberal idealist’s opening to the Arabs whoever they were. Or, to be precise, the ignominy of it all was that it was a courtship by the paradigmatic democracy of the paradigmatic oppressor which would respond to every overture with insult and scorn. (The Saudis experienced humiliation, too. It’s hard to tell whether they were following us or we them. Anyway, it’s clear that the president likes these royals. What will happen when the successor, Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, who is in his eighties and does not like us at all, ascends the throne after his brother Abdullah, who liked us a lot and had an ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, who likes us even more, departs to his maker and is buried in the anonymous desert sands, no marker, no monument, no nothing. This is—I am serious—a particularly tasteful part of Wahhabi tradition: the monarch dies; the monarch disappears. Poof!)
Of course, the Obama-Clinton diplomacy—oops, I almost typed “Carter” for “Clinton”—with Syria was initially an aspect of the president’s patently foolish diplomacy with Iran about which people nodded sagely but knew deep inside it was twaddle. But long after Obama understood—reluctantly, I am certain—that there weren’t deals to be had with Tehran (neither with Ahmadinejad nor with Khamenei) the president pursued his Damascus gamesmanship with a stubbornness that was born of his sense that he was always right. At least in foreign policy, about which he knows even less than about technical economic issues, his tenacity has been the cause of an almost seamless set of international failures. Alas, very few in the United States notice because we are fixated on our domestic exertions. Now, it may not be that Obama actually desires American authority and grip in the world to slip away, although I suspect that he might see this as a triumph for what old enthusiasts of this disposition call international morality and international law. Still, the decline of America is the sure consequence of his actions.
I have just read two articles about Syria. One, “Hundreds Reported Arrested as Syria’s Crackdown Widens,” is in The New York Times, datelined Beirut. One knows that it is based on sources in Damascus and other Syrian cities. But names can’t be used and, even in Lebanon, informants are better off nameless lest Assad’s long-armed secret police reach over the feeble frontier to silence him, like he silenced Rafik Hariri, the zillionaire Sunni prime minister of the neighboring cedar republic in 2005. “The scale and ferocity of the crackdown” is actually hair-raising, what with young children being arrested with their elders. There were dead ... but no one can make a true estimate. Be afraid! (There are no consolations to be drawn from the fact that the byline of Anthony Shadid, to whom we are all obligated for his sophisticated and textured reportage out of the region, appeared today with a Damascus dateline. He was admitted to Syria for the sole purpose of interviewing Assad’s chief flak. In and out.)
“Living Dead: Why is Syria Going Up in Flames?” is the second article, really an interpretative essay on Syria where a new writer for TNR, Theo Padnos, lived for several years. We think we know a dictatorship by how it behaves in exigent threat. But Padnos actually conveys the essence of how “normal” life prepares people slowly, almost casually, for dread. You can even sing along with the fashionable young of Damascus in the jolly days. But you’ll end up being cannily knowing about the erratic and also almost completely static rhythm of the police state. How well the tyranny plays off these two impulses determine its destiny. Maybe Assad will win this call. But maybe he won’t.
Still, the Obama administration has been wishing him well for at least two years. Or, rather, it should be said that Obama administration initiatives involving Syria—had they been successful which, of course, they were not—would have propped up the dictatorship by exaggerating its intrinsic sway, its own freedom of movement and the justice of its grievance against Israel. It is as if we have suddenly decided that a regime that tries to capture another country and loses territory in the process has the right to have it repatriated as if nothing had ever happened. Try, try, and try again, so to speak.
This is especially the case in the Levant where the diplomacy of boundaries going back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire—whose power had been wielded at a time from Vienna to Central Asia—was so scrawly and shifting that no one could know from one day to the next where this scepter held sway and that one did not. A propos these vagaries, in the diplomatic talks between France and England following the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 up to 1923 the biblical phrase “from Dan to Beer-Sheva” was the template of any map. But, of course, the words were more evocative than determinate, metaphoric than concrete. And so the cartographic war, from then and now, continues. What are Syria’s real claims to the Golan Heights? There were Syrian Arabs in the Golan prior to 1967. But no one actually thought of himself as ethnically or nationally Syrian. Instead, they replicated the diversity of hate, the permanent schismatics of difference. Moreover, the resident Alawite contingent—surprise! surprise!—is quite loyal to Israel. And there are Druze whose affinities are hard to judge since they are neither Arab nor Jew. In any case, what is Syria? It is certainly not a coherent or cohesive nation, what with its constant incitement of sectarian strife. And then there is the hydrostrategics of its geography, a permanent temptation for anyone governing from Damascus.
Spotted around Israel are failed states. I doubt that the states to the north, Lebanon and Syria, can be mended. Their essence was always difference. But certainly not as democracies where the rights of diverse groups are honored. Nobody sang hymns to variety and diversification in the lands of the Arabs. Have we already forgotten Iraq where the colonials established Sunni rule over a vast preponderance of Shia? In Syria, 10 percent of the population governs. The majoritarian rest, the Sunnis and their Muslim Brotherhood vanguard, have been cowering since 1982 ... until they had just cowered too much. Pity the Alawites when the Sunnis will strike for revenge. On the other hand, how much can you pity the Alawites who have been plundering and imprisoning and also murdering for four decades?
What had Obama in his head when he tried to jumpstart Israeli negotiations with Syria? Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, what else? The answer is simple and transparent: Israel’s retreat from territories it had captured while they were being used by enemies trying to vitiate Israel itself. But this is the president’s steady trope. Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and ancient Jerusalem and East Jerusalem and, yes, the Golan Heights, too, without a shred of evidence that it would be protected, could be protected from attack by armed soldiers, armed aircraft and armed terrorists, by a deadly admixture of regular troops with guerrillas somehow coddled by human rights organizations which define the latter virtually as civilians. Do you believe that the Arabs truly want peace? Does President Obama? Well, I don’t. There is always the ministration that NATO could force the keeping of a peace. But Obama has blown that alternative, too, by virtually opting out of its venture against Qaddafi and leaving the leadership to Great Britain and France, whose bona fides are suspect.
Why am I not a believer? Because the only unifying strand in the disparate state systems of the Arabs is their struggle against the Jews, the Zionists, the Israelis. Nothing else motivates them so doggedly. The Christians also are targets of the various Muslim governments under which they live, and their numbers are falling in every country of the region—except Israel where those who kneel at the cross are experiencing what one might even call a revival. This is especially so in Jerusalem where, quietly but decisively, the communicants of Jesus are hitching their future to Zion. Ironic, no?
But the future plight of the Christians in the region has been foreshadowed in Egypt where yet another slaughter of innocents took place on May 8 after a string of fiery incidents. “We are in a jungle,” cried a Coptic bishop. Eleven men and women, both Christian and Muslim, were left for dead, with about 250 wounded, of which some 50 were shot. Two churches were incinerated. It was an assault by Salafists who make the Muslim Brothers appear moderate.
We are now being sermonized, mostly by journalistic oracles, to believe that these last months are a Prague Spring for Muslims. They have an agenda and it is to convince Israel not to be a killjoy but to join the party and ease the path to peace. I happen to believe that Arabs need to learn to live with each other before Israel opens itself to its neighbors’ villainy now being practiced on their own.
Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.
Follow @tnr on Twitter.
64 comments
I like the tone of Martin Peretz' latest article. This is a kind of contemporary J'accuse with the Western intellectuals as the target. Good work.
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 12:33am
So what's your solution Peretz?
- Pnaut
May 11, 2011 at 12:59am
Is there a simple solution?
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 1:32am
There is no simple solution, but it would be novel if Peretz would offer something constructive as a potential way forward in at least one of his columns. The only tone I get when I read him is the self-satisfaction of smug contempt.
- Pnaut
May 11, 2011 at 1:42am
To Pnaut: To come up with a proposed solution, something constructive in your words, you first must understand the problem. Peretz tries at least to understand the problem. You can stick any derogatory name you like on his understanding of the problem, but the understanding remains. Maybe he has no solution, at least no we can sum it up in a few words solution. Does that mean that the problem has gone away -- or more precisely does that mean that the many, many overlapping similar and dissimilar problems, and fundamental conflicts of values, interests, and ideologies in the world of people who speak Arabic, have gone away. Not at all. What are your solutions Pnaut? Please post them. This is a free country and you are anonymous here, so you won't disappear one night because of what you may propose. So can anyone else posting here who has more to offer than the usual, redundant flow of insults directed at Peretz by those who abuse the hospitality offered by the publication he managed so well for so many years. Instead of verbally shooting at the messenger, guys and gals, why not use this forum to develop some constructive ideas. It may even be that some of you may know what you are writing about. Hopefully.
- PeteBeck
May 11, 2011 at 2:37am
I also don't think all this should be pinned on Obama. The "West" ie those in the sphere of Britain, particularly, but also France, have for a long time been Arabist. This predates WWI, when the British attacked the Ottoman Empire and destroyed it. So the Turks have also been demonized; but along with this has been a near blindness to the minority populations of the Middle East. This includes of course Jews along with many other peoples - but how many of us are at all versed in even relatively modern ME history? Beyond that, before Sykes-Picot and WWI and the idea of "Arab nation," which rather blithely overlooked the texture and history of this gigantic region, there had been imperial struggles between Russia, Britain, the Ottomans and other Central Asian powers, Germany, France...and let us not forget the commercial interests that often trump even nation-states and empires in terms of sheer real power. No. We can't simply say Bad Obama. There's been too much history and too many mistakes and also - the devastating effects of the Cold War are underestimated. Yet we see the fruit of that in Libya, Syria, among the radicalized Palestinian factions, in Egypt, in Lebanon, in Iraq and Central Asia. Our struggles against the Soviet Union continue to play out on the ground - the people themselves got caught in the middle and this includes the Israelis, the Afghans, Iran, the peoples of Africa. What we need to do though is recognize how some of our allies have romanticized and at the same time tried to manipulate this huge and vital region. We should start by looking more clearly at British policy. Britain has been a huge cause of bigotry against Jews but also of romanticizing and simultaneously trying to manipulate the entire Middle East, of turning peoples against each other - the past century has been incredibly destructive; huge lies have emerged from British sentiment - nations were drawn up out of the blue, with no regard to the people at all - the myth of The Arab World was created out of whole cloth - opposed to which supposedly are The Jews - and yet Americans continue to see through British eyes. Perhaps the latest and most telling outrage was the release of the Lockerbie terrorist to Libya. So now look. Look at the UN "Human Rights Commission," the power of the Arab League and its decades long, pre WWII boycott against the Jews - how many people even know about this, acknowledge its poison or even realize the degree to which our entire economy is saturated with the interests of the oil industry and its products? Can we even begin to unravel how this has become interwoven with religion, with Nazism, with imperialism both Western and Eastern, Christian and Muslim, capitalist and Communist, with the fallout from two World Wars? This simply cannot be blamed on Obama and Marty needs to knock this off because the problem began long before he got to the White House. I do agree that The Powers That Be in general have been bending over backwards to support despots but - what else is new? It makes sense if you look at it from the standpoint of a corporate bottom line. That same corporate and nationalistic calculus has some self-contradictory premises: we need stability; but yet - our own origin myths do not support the idea of destroying the Jews again. On the other hand, many Western nations hate Jews and religious bigotry in the East as well as the West is totally underestimated. We want to believe in freedom, democracy - but only as long as people don't actually begin acting out. That makes disorder, which is expensive. And so forth. We need to acknowledge all that and also the history of Chamberlain, Bevin, the real nature of WWI in the East and the fallout from that and also from the Great Game and the Cold War; plus, the fact that an ancient region and people who have no say in anything have been dragged from one world into another, that people have gone from an age of camels to an age of jets with no real transition period at all and also, they have not participated much if at all in this process. The Industrial Revolution did not begin in the Middle East - but its voracious appetite for energy drew it willy-nilly into the maelstrom. But as the other piece about Syria points out, they people don't see themselves as part of modernity, of industry; they are spirits of the land. We don't see this because we don't listen to their songs, we don't read their poetry. We still don't acknowledge the people of America, the people who live now on reservations. How many of us even see them, look at their art, know something of their religions? Right. So how are we going to navigate the Middle East? We suffer from enormous hubris do we not? Now - Israel. Israel is part of this Middle East, not foreign but also, not the same. Jews are not all from the ME, not for millenia. And, though many came from the East, many of us are also, have always been, questioning; modern. Yet Israel is also not "the West." Nor can Israel be safe just because somebody says so, because there has been no connection between the people of Israel and the other peoples of the region, with probably a few exceptions, personal exceptions. So - solutions? We shouldn't be excoriating Obama or tearing out our hair, either. We should be dropping planeloads of books, books and computers. It really is the only way forward - knowledge - but that goes both ways. The hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East are not phantoms, nor are they tractable, predictable projections of our own interests, our own ideas about who they should be.
- Sophia
May 11, 2011 at 2:45am
Peretz's solution is his concuding sentence: "...I happen to believe that Arabs need to learn to live with each other before Israel opens itself to its neighbors’ villainy now being practiced on their own." Very temperate idea. As I study the history, range of conflicts, and protests, my solution is for the Sunni to fight it out with the Shi'a, and for all the Christian and other minorities to somehow be protected from the intolerance of Islam and/or Islamist governments. I applaud Peretz for mentioning the Berbers, who, like the Kurds and Druze, Turkey's Alevis, and the scattered Circassians, deserve self-determination and autonomy and protection from unreformed Islam which sanctions the demonization of anyone different. And, Obama deserves every criticism that Peretz writes, and more. Yes, Sophia, Obama inherited a century of post-Ottoman bad mapmaking, but his policies and actions regarding Israel merit no defense.
- K2K
May 11, 2011 at 8:42am
I make the assumption that Obama's approach to Syria was part of a larger strategy to potentially isolate Iran more by stripping away the support from Damascus. Only if your theory of foreign policy is "never try anything, ever" would that be a basis for negative criticism in and of itself. If I recall correctly, during the Bush administration our connection with the Syrian regime was close enough that we sent rendition subjects there to be "interrogated." Only in Martyperetzworld did history begin in 2009.
- ironyroad
May 11, 2011 at 10:34am
"I happen to believe that Arabs need to learn to live with each other before Israel opens itself to its neighbors’ villainy now being practiced on their own." A good idea! What happens if the Arabs who border Israel do just that in the next, say, 3-5 years and then demand that Israel give up the Golan, West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians in exchange for a piece of paper? After all, it's not an idle thought -- Egypt is on its way to becoming a democratic state at least along the lines of Turkey and it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jordan and maybe even Lebanon could go there as well. Who knows about Syria, but there is certainly a best-case scenario that the country could be a pseudo-democracy along Iraqi lines five years hence, assuming that the current uprising forces out Assad over the course of the next year. And, if there is another Iranian revolution within 5 years that re-orients its policies away from anti-Western hatred, the aggressive anti-Israel block in the Middle East would crumble. Marty should freely admit what is obvious -- Israel is betting on the ultimate failure of the Arab Spring and a reversion to authoritarian despotism. That way, it can hold on to the 1967 borders and ensure its close alliance with the US because the criticism and hostility coming its way from its neighbors could be discounted the way it has been these past 60-odd years. It's not an unrealistic bet, but it is a bet with all the chips on a single outcome. What Israel and its great friends like Marty refuse to admit is that there are other possible outcomes, such as genuine democratic reform coupled with strident anti-Israel positions (even if short of a demand for war or terror). If that occurs, it will be a lot harder for the US or any other Israeli ally to ignore Arab demands that would be unacceptable to Israel under normal circumstances. And that would truly be a day of reconing for Israel and its entire relationship with the West. Genuine friends of Israel should consider alternatives for how to deal with that sort of future, rather than justifying its current policies of betting on a worsening outcome.
- wildboy
May 11, 2011 at 10:56am
"I happen to believe that Arabs need to learn to live with each other before Israel opens itself to its neighbors’ villainy now being practiced on their own." A good idea! What happens if the Arabs who border Israel do just that in the next, say, 3-5 years and then demand that Israel give up the Golan, West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians in exchange for a piece of paper? After all, it's not an idle thought -- Egypt is on its way to becoming a democratic state at least along the lines of Turkey and it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jordan and maybe even Lebanon could go there as well. Who knows about Syria, but there is certainly a best-case scenario that the country could be a pseudo-democracy along Iraqi lines five years hence, assuming that the current uprising forces out Assad over the course of the next year. And, if there is another Iranian revolution within 5 years that re-orients its policies away from anti-Western hatred, the aggressive anti-Israel block in the Middle East would crumble. Marty should freely admit what is obvious -- Israel is betting on the ultimate failure of the Arab Spring and a reversion to authoritarian despotism. That way, it can hold on to the 1967 borders and ensure its close alliance with the US because the criticism and hostility coming its way from its neighbors could be discounted the way it has been these past 60-odd years. It's not an unrealistic bet, but it is a bet with all the chips on a single outcome. What Israel and its great friends like Marty refuse to admit is that there are other possible outcomes, such as genuine democratic reform coupled with strident anti-Israel positions (even if short of a demand for war or terror). If that occurs, it will be a lot harder for the US or any other Israeli ally to ignore Arab demands that would be unacceptable to Israel under normal circumstances. And that would truly be a day of reconing for Israel and its entire relationship with the West. Genuine friends of Israel should consider alternatives for how to deal with that sort of future, rather than justifying its current policies of betting on a worsening outcome.
- wildboy
May 11, 2011 at 11:00am
If the Arabs did learn to get along with each other it would be a different place. Getting along doesn't mean adopt a strident anti-Israel view. That's already in place. The only thing they do agree on is that Israel should not exist. Anyone remember the Egyptian Syrian confederation of the 60's? Getting along means allowing peoples with different views and different outlooks to live among them without treating them like potential enemies. It means treating Berbers and Christian Copts with respect. When they can do that they will also be able to make peace with Israel and Israelis will respond in kind. Israel has always voted for peace when the peace offers were genuine. Israel isn't their porblem no matter what some J Stret hacks here think.
- Packard
May 11, 2011 at 11:23am
Sorry, Packard, that ain't gonna cut it. Waiting for all Arab states to become stable democracies before you do anything about the 1967 Territories (and, more importantly, their disenfranchised inhabitants) isn't a position for peace negotiations -- it is an excuse to do nothing and continue the status quo forever. Israel can still get away with this excuse and could continue to do so for a while because its Arab neighbors were all tyrannies of one stripe or another and often allied with more distant regimes that were actively hostile to American interests, like the USSR or Iran. If that changes decisively over the next several years, any US government not led by President Huckabee is going to have to pay much more attention to what those neighboring Arab publics want. And it's hard not to believe that they would want a full withdrawal to the 1967 Green Line (including all the annexed areas of East Jerusalem) and even a full-blown Right of Return. That would be popular foreign policy, backed by overwhelming public opinion in democratically elected Arab countries. Under those circumstances, Israel would find its options much, much more limited than it does today.
- wildboy
May 11, 2011 at 11:58am
"Sorry, Packard, that ain't gonna cut it. Waiting for all Arab states to become stable democracies before you do anything about the 1967 Territories (and, more importantly, their disenfranchised inhabitants) isn't a position for peace negotiations -- it is an excuse to do nothing and continue the status quo forever." I wasn't talking about continuing the status quo. I was talking about your fairy tale view that if Israel withdraws from the West Bank with or without an agreement hostilities toward Israel will cease. Now that the PLO and Hamas are in the same tent the chances of peace following unilateral withdrawal are pretty slim. So far the upheavals in the Arab States have not led to democracy and the odds are that it will not. Focusing narrowly on Israel as the problem as J Street does isn’t going to solve any problems and will make peace even more difficult to achieve. If the PLO-Hamas government sees that their belligerency is yielding results why should they want to recognize a State they want to destroy?
- Packard
May 11, 2011 at 12:51pm
I think the Israelis should hold on to the Golan Heights. In military terms it is just too vital to the security of their nation. Israel has been in a constant state of war since its inception. And the Golan Heights is necessary to its existence as a nation. The Golan Heights is just too important in strategic terms. It would be appeasement to give up that important piece of real estate. And they would just have to retake it in the next war, which would mean more grieving family members for their fallen soldiers. Also it would be used as the staging area for clandestine incursions into Israel for suicide squads. So it's significant military value trumps the diplomatic one. It's that simple and basic. The Syrians cannot be trusted given the treatment of their own citizens now, and in the past as during the Hama massacre, As Tom Friedman wrote in his book, From Beirut to Jerusalem, about that massacre: "Hama rules." That says it all. Israel is in a constant state of siege. Orwell once wrote in one of his essays that peace is a less intense state of war, and war is a more intense state of peace, I think the essay was "Inside the Whale." Anyway, that succinctly describes the conflict Israelis have experienced during their short history as a nation. Why people always confuse diplomatic issues with strategic/military issues is beyond me. Maybe, because I served in Vietnam as a medical corpsman, I saw the human face of war. I would think, perhaps I am wrong, that the vast majority of the Western diplomats pressuring the Israel government to put the Golan Heights on the diplomatic table, have never heard a shot fired in anger nor rockets fired at them. But that may be my own bias having lived for the past four decades among civilians, who only see issues in political or intellectual terms. But I know what destruction and death a rocket can do. And the Golan Heights would be a perfect place to launch rockets into Israel.
- rewiredhogdog
May 11, 2011 at 12:55pm
I agree with Packard in part. Where I disagree is that Israel does need to take down the settlements deep in the West Bank and offer to negotiate now. On the other hand, I agree that Israel can’t just abandon the West Bank before negotiations. What it should do is take out as many of the settlements it can (offer monetary incentive to the residents to move to within the green line) but it should keep its army there to protect Israel from Gaza type attacks. By doing so they will signal that they are not going to annex the West Bank but that they are willing to negotiate with the PA for a peace treaty.
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 12:58pm
rewiredhog "I think the Israelis should hold on to the Golan Heights. In military terms it is just too vital to the security of their nation." Yes, as long as Syria lacks a legitimate government. You can't make peace with a tyrannical regime and expect that a legitimate government once it comes to power will abide by any accede with the murderous Assad regime. I am not optimistic about a consensual and legitimate government arising in Syria. (Real democracy will not take hold there in the short term, if ever.) What is really worrisome about the Assad regime is that if they see themselves in danger they may just start a war against Israel in order to divert attention from themselves. The Hezbollah of Lebanon is probably advising such a step right now.
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 1:05pm
Solution? How can there be any 'solution' where savagery and treachery have ruled for a millenium?
- lgfrank
May 11, 2011 at 1:15pm
Arnon, you took the words (mostly) from my mouth. What Israel needs to show over the short and medium term is a commitment to clearing the path for peace once conditions in the region stabilize. And, yes, that means both taking down settlements far beyond the Green Line and not approving any further significant expansion of settlements anywhere. A big factor in the First Intifadah (though hardly the only factor) was Israel's continued expansion of settlements even when it was otherwise handing over territorial control and internal autonomy of settled Arab areas to the PA. This just reinforced the views of the most anti-Israel Palestinian factions that the Israelis were not actually interested in a sovereign Palestinian state, but some sort of halfway house of perpetual internal autonomy without political rights. As for the lack of democracy in the Arab world, the Israelis are clearly betting on that. But, as I said, they are putting all their chips on one outcome. If a different outcome comes along, they will be caught in a position where even their friends won't be willing to defend their actions. And it would hardly be enough to point out, as Marty so often does, that there are despotic Arab states here or there. A democratic Egypt, a democratic Jordan, a democratic Turkey and some form of democracy in the Palestinian areas would be enough to force Israel's hand in the court of world opinion and with the United States as it relates to Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. It's up to us friends of Israel to help warn Israelis of the consequences of that sort of eventuality.
- wildboy
May 11, 2011 at 2:08pm
I imagine that the Israeli diplomatic and intelligence folks are smart and far-sighted enough to prepare different medium to long-term responses to however the various Arab countries manage their transition (or don't). And, although I don't have a lot of respect for Netanyahu, I don't believe he would use his political authority to narrow down future Israeli capacities in that context. What might become important is to not crush small acorns. If the impression takes root in various places in Egypt and elsewhere that (a) Israel, without being dewy-eyed about the legacy of absolutist opposition to its existence, is a believer in the future of Arab democratic movements because it too is a democratic society, and (b) that mindless conspiratorial hostility is not a good way to keep going down, those two elements could produce something better than what's in the forest at the moment. Can Israel help those acorns along? is the question. If there is some success, then Palestine becomes a national and territorial conflict that can be resolved, be it with great effort, as opposed to an ethno-religious war of annihilation.
- ironyroad
May 11, 2011 at 2:44pm
"As for the lack of democracy in the Arab world, the Israelis are clearly betting on that." Kadima and other parties in Israel are not betting on that. The problem with these discussions is that people post generalities about different issues without relating them credibly to each other. World public opinion, if there is such a thing, is made up of numerous factors, the media being one of them, then there are the numerous human rights groups who are anti-Israel and all kinds of student activists that just don't like there to be a Jewish State. Then among this world there are billions of Muslims that have been taught since infancy that the Jews are their enemies. Every international forum from the UN on down has its anti-Israel contingent. World public opinion in relation to Israel is a closed loop where Israel is seen to be evil, and because it is seen that way it always has to prove to the world that it isn't guilty. As Philip Roth put it in Operation Shylock, the Jewish State and its citizens have been on trial since its founding. This isn’t true of any other country. Now that the world is in love with “democracy” every Arab country in the world will call itself a democracy just as Soviet States used to call themselves “democracies.” The weird thing here is that journalists who should know better are going along. Israel, on the other hand is seen by these same journalists as Shylock was seen in the Venetian Court in Shakespeare's play. The Arabs can kill tens of thousands of its citizens and the world public opinion shrugs its shoulders. Israel (or the US, as the killing of Bib Laden show)) kills or arrests a terrorist responsible for many deaths and it's an outrage against international law. No, Israel doesn’t need to play to world public opinion. It should evacuate its settlers because it’s right thing to do from a strategic, demographic and an economic point of view.
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 2:57pm
ironyroad what you say partially and only partially true. The problem is that this conflict has so many dimmensions to it that any comments will of necessity be only partially true. In your comment you assume that democracy taking root in the Arab will be similar to the process countries in Eastern Europe or Latin America, or South Africa went through to become democracies. Even if true, given the fact that democracies in these other places for the most part are democracies in name only I don't know why the outcome would be different in the Arab world.
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 3:04pm
It is interesting that of the first things that the Egyptian democratic revolution did was to restore diplomatic relations with that Islamic democratic country called Iran. As they say, you can't make this up! The Arab Spring will turn into the Arab Winter and the only difference will be a change in the cast of bigots ruling these countries.
- jneuberg
May 11, 2011 at 5:29pm
If the West has been more than wiling to be dishonest about its relationship with and to Christianity there is no reason to be surprised if We treat Islam with the same kind of carelessness and wishful thinking. As if to believe that if I just say it loud and often enough well then it will be so. Incredibly childish attitude. No I'm not an Islamaphobe. Phobia presents as an irrational fear. Islam has specific codification that describes a God sanctioned contempt for Jews and Christians and other errants (everyone not muslim). If we can't even get a proper characterization of the Enlightenment right ( or to simply approach the subject with an intellectual honesty sans self interest of various contenders) what makes us think any insights into the Middle East would be remotely valid? For my part I've watched lo these fifty plus years the muslims pursue their agenda with a resolved audacity. Their argument the likes of which can only find a remote credibility in an unhinged medium and audience.
- jacko
May 11, 2011 at 5:31pm
The story runs that the beautiful Bohemian dancer Isadora Duncan said to playwright G. B. Shaw, "Let's get together and make a baby, so it will have your brains and my looks." To which Shaw riposted, "But dear, what if it has my looks and your brains." Suppose the Arabs and the Iranians and the Israelis said, "Let's form a ménage à trois, combining your oil and energy and our brains and entrepreneurship." I leave it to your imagination to conceive of the world that would result if these three groups combined their nuclear assets and nationalistic fanaticism and religious zealotry. As bad as things may be, they always can get worse. The enemy of your enemy...
- skahn
May 11, 2011 at 7:17pm
skahn: " leave it to your imagination to conceive of the world that would result if these three groups combined their nuclear assets and nationalistic fanaticism and religious zealotry." Only an antisemite could up with such a scenario. Did you write the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"
- arnon
May 11, 2011 at 9:21pm
Yeah, skahn, are you 140 years old?
- bunthorne
May 11, 2011 at 9:34pm
"At least in foreign policy, about which he knows even less than about technical economic issues, his tenacity has been the cause of an almost seamless set of international failures. Alas, very few in the United States notice because we are fixated on our domestic exertions. Now, it may not be that Obama actually desires American authority and grip in the world to slip away, although I suspect that he might see this as a triumph for what old enthusiasts of this disposition call international morality and international law. Still, the decline of America is the sure consequence of his actions." The usual drivel from the demented Peretz. Of course, cowboy-style war and diplomacy of the sort Peretz likes did wonders for our authority and grip in the world. But, hey, what does reality have to do with anything for the Martin Peretz's of the world? Not a thing.
- roidubouloi
May 11, 2011 at 10:58pm
Here's a fabulous idea for Israel that makes perfect sense in a Peretzian world: If we can't make peace with failed states, why, let's turn our own state into the second historical example of apartheid. Won't that be grand? Indeed, what choice do we have? In the absence of peace, apartheid is inevitable.
- roidubouloi
May 11, 2011 at 11:01pm
More than that - what exactly are these failures we always hear about? It seems like things have been going about as well as could be expected. We haven't accomplished everything we'd like of course, but what disasters have there been?
- bunthorne
May 11, 2011 at 11:04pm
Exactly -- the fact that Obama hasn't launched a war that we are still fighting now at eight years and counting might seem to be a point in his favor, but apparently that is one more sign of the president's failure to grasp the essentials of foreign policy. In Martyperetzworld the rules are 1) talk a lot, agressively, rather than act, quietly 2) start wars on shaky grounds 3) don't try anything inventive to get a grip on problems that have been around a while and could do with some new thinking
- ironyroad
May 12, 2011 at 12:45am
"The usual drivel from the demented Peretz." The usual predictable drivel from the demented Roid.
- nr106646
May 12, 2011 at 1:20am
Finally someone says it as it is. B.O. and his advisers know nothing about Arab history, geography, religions, society... Yet they all act as if they are "Experts" and will fix things up. So far B.O. and Hilary's success is "Arab Spring" that ain't. The Muslim Brotherhood is on the horse and no one knows who are the revolting people in all Arab states. The "experts" will have egg on their faces sooner than later for supporting fanatical Islamists. Did anyone hear B.O. or Hilary saying that they are sorry for returning an ambassador to Damascus thinking that Assad was a "Moderate?" Don't blame me! I did not vote for Obama. I never vote for anti-Semites nor their supporters. I left the Democratic party now tainted with plenty of B.O. supporters and divers anti-Semites.
- Poupic
May 12, 2011 at 6:31am
With the usual predictable response from the moron nr106646.
- roidubouloi
May 12, 2011 at 7:25am
arnon wrote "No, Israel doesn’t need to play to world public opinion. It should evacuate its settlers because it’s right thing to do from a strategic, demographic and an economic point of view." Great point. Your perspective in general has been balanced and informative for someone like myself who is far removed from the intricacies of this conflict. I also wanted to touch on another thing you said... "Israel, on the other hand is seen by these same journalists as Shylock was seen in the Venetian Court in Shakespeare's play." Growing up in Ghana, my first real exposure to negative Jewish stereotypes was derived from the Shylock character in 'The Merchant of Venice'. To what extent do you think negativity towards Israel as a Jewish state is being driven by these subconscious programming? How can it be reversed? It is my understanding that Israel has only 11 diplomatic missions in Sub-Saharan Africa (sSA), serving 39 countries. If this is true, it is woefully inadequate. There needs to be a counter offensive by Israel on the diplomatic front to engage more closely with sSA. There seems to be an over-reliance on playing defense as opposed to going on the offense to change the default narrative that Western colonization and other factors helped put in place.
- wkwami
May 12, 2011 at 11:47am
With the usual attack moronic and predictable responses from roidubouloi.
- nr106646
May 12, 2011 at 11:52am
"05/12/2011 - 7:25am EDT | roidubouloi With the usual predictable response from the moron nr106646." Please note who has cast the first insult, in a discussion that up until that moment managed to maintain a civil and relevant focus.
- noga1
May 12, 2011 at 12:28pm
Please do indeed note: "05/12/2011 - 1:20am EDT | nr106646 The usual predictable drivel from the demented Roid." Last time I checked, 1:20am was earlier than 7:25 am. Same old, same old. Same scum, different day.
- roidubouloi
May 12, 2011 at 12:31pm
Winds of change in the Arab world: http://watchingamerica.com/News/101173/what%E2%80%99s-next-we-want-our-rights-from-america-and-israel/ The whole world doubts the official 9/11 story and still doubts that a single man like bin Laden could commit 9/11. He could very well be an instrument, but the planning and logistics extended beyond his skill and knowledge. Our thoughts take us to the CIA, which already announced its involvement with bin Laden at the time of 9/11. "We will consider that bin Laden killed 3,000 in the World Trade Center in New York and we will consider that his assassination yesterday was a service to justice and retribution. We also want our rights from George W .Bush and Tony Blair, who have killed a million Iraqis in an unjustified and illegitimate war. We also want our rights from Sharon, Obama, Peres, Olmert and Netanyahu, who killed thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese. I demand our rights from every Israeli leader starting from Levi Eshkol, Ben Gurion even Golda Meir and Menachem Begin, who have committed innumerable massacres and stole an entire country. Isn’t that justice, Mr. Obama, if your own goal in hunting bin Laden was to serve of justice? We are waiting for the truth on bin Laden’s death and how justice will be achieved by the righteous. " _____________________ http://watchingamerica.com/News/101173/what%E2%80%99s-next-we-want-our-rights-from-america-and-israel/ "Meanwhile, in Egypt — and this is one of the countries transformed by the revolution of the Arab people against their rulers — the reaction of the Egyptians has not differed from the reaction of their counterparts in Afghanistan. According to Dr. Nasr Farid Wasel, former Mufti of the republic and member of the Islamic Research Academy, “The Islamic ruling on Osama bin Laden is that he is a martyr for being killed by the hand of the enemy.” As was clear from most of the comments made by Facebook users and readers of news websites, the majority tend to consider bin Laden a martyr and a mujahid, whereas only a few commenters see him as a terrorist. Among the most remarkable comments were those pronouncing that bin Laden did not die and that there are a million bin Ladens. A number of phrases were repeated again and again — e.g., that he lived a hero and died a hero. Perhaps the most affecting or influential of the comments was that “he died terrorizing the terrorists.” Meanwhile, as for Jordan — and this is one of the countries allied with the United States in its war against what has been called terrorism — activists of the Salafi-Jihadist movement have congratulated the Islamic ummah for the “martyrdom of Sheikh Osama bin Laden” while the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood has said that bin Laden died on the path that he chose, adding that “He knows of his ultimate end and of the cost of confrontation and resistance against America and its dictator allies in the region.” _____________ To me it is obvious that even educated Arabs may have difficulty understanding that populism is not democracy.
- noga1
May 12, 2011 at 12:40pm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME10Ak01.html “The hunger to come in Egypt By Spengler Egypt is running out of food, and, more gradually, running out of money with which to buy it. The most populous country in the Arab world shows all the symptoms of national bankruptcy – the kind that produced hyperinflation in several Latin American countries during the 1970s and 1980s – with a deadly difference: Egypt imports half its wheat, and the collapse of its external credit means starvation. The civil violence we have seen over the past few days foreshadows far worse to come. The Arab uprisings began against a background of food insecurity, as rising demand from Asia priced the Arab poor out of the grain market (Food and failed Arab states, Asia Times Online February 2, 2011). The chaotic political response, though, threatens to disrupt food supplies in the relative near term. Street violence will become the norm rather than the exception in Egyptian politics. All the discussion about Egypt’s future political model and its prospective relations with Israel will be overshadowed by the country’s inability to feed itself. Egypt’s political problems – violence against Coptic Christians, the resurgence of Islamism, and saber-rattling at Israel, for example – are not symptoms of economic failure. They have a life of their own. But even Islamists have to eat, and whatever political scenarios that the radical wing of Egyptian politic might envision will be aborted by hunger. ”
- noga1
May 12, 2011 at 12:42pm
"05/12/2011 - 12:31pm EDT | roidubouloi Please do indeed note: "05/12/2011 - 1:20am EDT | nr106646 The usual predictable drivel from the demented Roid." Last time I checked, 1:20am was earlier than 7:25 am. Same old, same old. Same scum, different day." More predictable babble from Roid.
- nr106646
May 12, 2011 at 1:01pm
Democracy in Egypt: "Crime Wave in Egypt Has People Afraid, Even the Police" "“The police are afraid,” said Mohamed Ismail, 30, a witness. “I am afraid to leave my neighborhood.” Three months after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, a surging crime wave in post-revolutionary Egypt has emerged as a serious threat to its promised transition to democracy. Businessmen, politicians and human rights activists say they fear that the mounting disorder — from sectarian strife to soccer riots — is hampering a desperately needed economic recovery or, worse, inviting a new authoritarian crackdown." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/middleeast/13egypt.html? Should we expect anything different in Syria?
- arnon
May 12, 2011 at 1:04pm
If the essence of the previous comments is that it will be a long and hard road to establish a democratic culture in Egypt, then yes, nobody but a dewy-eyed optimist could think otherwise. However, if the core of the approach is "Hey, they haven't become Switzerland and it's already May," then that may be subjecting events and people to measures that almost nobody could come up to. The shift from an authoritarian system to one in which people are free to do stuff they didn't before permits a lot of ugly phenomena to come out of the cellars. However, if the majority of Egyptians want to have a functioning modern nation, then persecuting or turning a blind eye to the persecution of the Coptic minority, for example, won't get them to that objective. It may be the case -- it can't be excluded -- that the majority of Egyptians do not in fact want that functioning modern nation, that they prefer either what they had before or a kind of Islamist-infused shambles, but I'd like to hold off on that judgment.
- ironyroad
May 12, 2011 at 3:03pm
"... but I'd like to hold off on that judgment." I'm wondering what kind of event it will take to make that judgment. Since "liberation" we have seen a journalist thought to be Jewish gang-raped, we have seen deadly attacks on Copts, we have seen presidential candidates threatening to cancel the peace agreements with Israel, we have seen two sabotages of a gas pipeline to Israel accompanied by ministerial avowals that there would be no sale of gas to Israel, we have seen any kind of conspiracies about Israel trying to sabotage the "Arab spring" (a ridiculous term anyway), we have seen threatening rallies in front of the Israeli embassy. I was told by a Copt woman whom I know that the Muslim Brothers go about in cars with loudspeakers inciting against Christians. So where exactly do you find the justification for holding off judgment?
- noga1
May 12, 2011 at 4:47pm
“The shift from an authoritarian system to one in which people are free to do stuff they didn't before permits a lot of ugly phenomena to come out of the cellars. However, if the majority of Egyptians want to have a functioning modern nation, then persecuting or turning a blind eye to the persecution of the Coptic minority, for example, won't get them to that objective.” You are mistaken in your assumption, Ironyroad. Terms like authoritarianism can’t be applied to countries like Egypt where no form of democratic or republican or even aristocratic rule ever took hold there. Countries like the Czech Republic or Poland were authoritarian or even totalitarian (not an exact socio- political term) in the past and are currently experiencing democratic rule. Whether this is merely an interlude or not time will tell. These countries though had in past have had moments of democratic self rule. This is hardly the case in Egypt. To speak of the “majority of Egyptians” wanting a functional democracy when they don’t know what it is dewy eyed wishful thinking. Do you have any poll data that indicates that there is a desire for democratic rule which goes beyond elections? Egypt’s neighbors can’t afford to assume that democratic rule will take hold there neither can the minorities in Egypt like the Copts.
- arnon
May 12, 2011 at 4:59pm
Noga, I find holding off as justified as painting the doomsday scenario -- at the moment. It's just a fact of human life that some things take time to work themselves out. Whether or not 'Arab Spring' is a silly term, it seems to have stuck. One can't rationally observe a major social and political upheaval in a large and multifaceted country in Jan/Feb and then conclude in early May that it's all going to hell in a handbasket. There are elections schedule for autumn -- if they involve solid participation, non-corrupt counting, and they produce something like a government ratified by the people, then yes, I'm optimistic to an extent. arnon -- I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm was trying to avoid making assumptions in my comment, hence the conditional "However, if . . ." that you quote from me. I emphasized that I don't know whether Egyptians want a functioning modern nation or not, but I assume that some people do, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are now. Indeed the attacks on Copts and the obsession with Israel (which will bump up against reality) suggest an active minority that fears that very modern nation developing. I'm not sure how Poland and the Czech Republic fit into this as they share a history of being part of the Hapsburg empire but also have very different national cultures and demographics. One might also say that France, for example, has had authoritarian (perhaps even totalitarian) government in the past, and who knows how long French democracy will continue? Indeed, the Czechs come out rather well in Central European comparisons and have managed to not covet other people's territory. In any event, "holding off" is not "assuming," it's the opposite of assuming.
- ironyroad
May 12, 2011 at 7:15pm
I am saying that the use of the term "authoritarian" can't be easily applied to the Arab world since it's a term used to describe regimes in Europe. Hence I take issue with you comment that "The shift from an authoritarian system to one in which people are free to do stuff they didn't before permits a lot of ugly phenomena to come out of the cellars." I don't know which ugly phenomenon was in the cellar which is not visible in Egypt? Antisemitsm? Hatred of Copts and other non Muslims? Attacks on women? This has been in evidence there for centuries. Egypt like other Arab have autoritarian cultures which is why a change in leaderhsip will not change that. Can you cite any period in the Arab world's history which was democratic and tolerant. European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic did have moments in their history of both. Which is why after the collapse of the communist regimes they could build on that past history.
- arnon
May 12, 2011 at 7:45pm
"There are elections schedule for autumn -- if they involve solid participation, non-corrupt counting, and they produce something like a government ratified by the people, then yes, I'm optimistic to an extent." That's what happened in Gaza when Hamas was elected by "solid participation, non-corrupt counting, and [...] produce something like a government ratified by the people," That's what happened in Iran. So you think there is something optimistic about those places, too? Can you really be that naive? It's a rhetorical question.
- noga1
May 12, 2011 at 9:04pm
Naiveté is not in play here, and holding off on final judgment does not meet the requirements for that condition. The cases aren't that similar, either. Iran is not an Arab country and even under the Mullahs has had something resembling elections in a technical sense for a long time, and people are aware of how the system works, or its extent. Hamas's victory was imo a rejection of corruption and economic failure on the part of Fatah and could have been foreseen. Indeed, fwiw, I foresaw it (as, I suspect, did many in Israel). I think I recall some conversation at the other pub with a few folks on that very topic at the time.
- ironyroad
May 12, 2011 at 10:19pm
".. nd even under the Mullahs has had something resembling elections in a technical sense for a long time, and people are aware of how the system works, or its extent." Shades of Roger Cohen (whose opinions I believe you find somewhat persuasive?): http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2011/05/roger-cohen-man-who-rarely-misses.html "Turkey (Islam is the youngest of the world's major religions. Its accommodation to modernity is a virulent [sic!] work in progress.)... Iran ("flawed but vibrant democracy")... Egypt ("Islamic parties can run thriving economies and democracies like Turkey’s" -" Philosopher Roger Scruton calls this mindset the gambler's optimism, and I tend to agree with him that so-called progressives, in their rush to solve large-scale political questions, tend to adopt "the best-case fallacy." They don't ask what happens if this fails. They 9recklessly) assume that things will go the way they want them to go. Reading your comments, ironyroad, I could swear I discerned real annoyance with those who do not see any darling bud of May in the so called Arab Spring. What's that about, I had to wonder? By what rule of proper thinking am I obligated to take your optimism as the only way in which to relate to these events? And if I refuse to follow, and criticize your reluctance to call a spade a spade, then I'm deemed to be some sort of doom and gloom prophetess?
- noga1
May 13, 2011 at 11:02am
I think the comment I made about Iran is a fairly uncontroversial argument, Noga, irrespective of what someone else who isn't me did or didn't say about it. My impression is that you don't actually disagree with me on that particular point. Your last para raises an interesting and admittedly somewhat difficult question, and I'd like to give it a more comprehensive answer. This afternoon, I just have to take care of stuff I've let slide, so I'll try to respond later on.
- ironyroad
May 13, 2011 at 1:21pm
"...think the comment I made about Iran is a fairly uncontroversial argument, Noga," Where did I say you made a controversial argument? Perhaps I don't know what "controversial" means. But maybe that's exatly what I was trying to say. That while there is nothing controversial about wanting to be optimistic, there is equally nothing controversial about being reasonably pessimistic about it. You are the one who went all hurt and offended for my summoning up the term "naivete" to characterize your mindset. And I don't really understand what point you made about Iran that I couldn't agree with: That it's not Arab? I always insist on this distinction with a view that Iranians are more likely to actually have a proper democracy because culturally and historically they are primed for it. Unlike Arabs, who are not. I'm thinking that this is a conversation, ironyroad, not an account sheet in which we count the number of words we agree about or not. Conversations where both sides are in total agreement are boring and futile. Let's try it sometime. You say something you know for sure I will agree with and I will respond by agreeing. I'm curious about what stuff you've let slide, cleaning? Laundry? Marking exams? Haircut? Returning books to the library? Stocking up on beer?
- noga1
May 13, 2011 at 3:44pm
If only! It's more like catching up on editorial responsibilities for a project for which I'm the responsible editor and I've been avoiding said responsibilities. Marginally better than marking exams but to be honest I'd nearly do laundry in preference.
- ironyroad
May 13, 2011 at 4:14pm
OK, now I feel somewhat more mentally capable, today. I would begin by saying that, while Roger Scruton is not dear to my heart, I know that his thinking can often be succinct and his judgments not to be dismissed. I don't quite know what a "so-called progressive" is, as that suggests that the term is fraudulent or unjustified, but it's true that in many cases, progressives can approach "large-scale political questions" in a way that sees the positive outcome glittering before them. But I find that a little narrow, although fairly uncontestable, and I tend to doubt, in the American context at least, that it's only progressives, so-called or not, who embrace "the best-case fallacy." I would argue that the description "They don't ask what happens if this fails. They (recklessly) assume that things will go the way they want them to go" is a strikingly accurate description, for example, of the Bush administration and the invasion of Iraq. Although several of those involved in the planning weren't "conservative" in a traditional cultural sense, it does not seem that too many "progressive" fingerprints could be found on that particular set of policies and decisions. My own take is that it's more of an American thing than a progressive thing. Hence the somewhat confused reactions across the political spectrum to the events in the Arab world. So, now to your final question/challenge: "By what rule of proper thinking am I obligated to take your optimism as the only way in which to relate to these events? And if I refuse to follow, and criticize your reluctance to call a spade a spade, then I'm deemed to be some sort of doom and gloom prophetess?" No rule. And no obligation. I'm arguing a position that appears to be different from yours, but I'm also very curious as to where your lines of thought are actually going (possibly we might agree on one or two of these). I suppose that one assumption on my side, more unconscious than conscious most of the time, is that TNR is a left-of-center magazine but also one with a strong liberal tradition when it comes to literature, the arts, and intellectual culture. To that extent, there is somewhat of a optimistic take built in, I believe -- optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect, perhaps -- but with a strong dose of realism on the plate too. For both journal and readers, in fact. Hence my somewhat doggedly reiterating the point that "holding off" is not the same as gushing naiveté. And I don't believe I've been afraid to call a spade a spade, or a bloody shovel, but at the same time I am trying to pick my way between different reports, with different agendas, from Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and what-have-you, and I don't have enough local knowledge or confident judgment to be able to say which spade is which. I do, however, have some historical knowledge and judgment -- or so I fool myself -- and they tells me (a) that while the froth of change is attractive, we don't know what the deeper currents are, and (b) human societies are often in flux both in good directions (say, the removal of the Salazar and Franco regimes in Portugal and Spain and of the military dictatorship in Greece in the 1970s and 80s), and bad (say, the collapse of Yugoslavia in to warring mini-nations twenty years ago). A successful and at least medium-term transformation in the Arab countries is not guaranteed and I have claimed nowhere that it is. So, my return question is, whether or not you entertain the foregoing as a reasonable position or not, what are your thoughts on this? If, as you say, it is the case that Arab societies cannot, due to culture/religion/psychic make-up or whatever, manage the transformation, what should we do. Tell them to forget about it? Organize military coups? Go completely hands-off? I'm certainly not accusing you of being a "doom and gloom prophetess" but the fact that you leave definitive but somewhat abstract assertions hanging in the air provides an empty stage for shadows to fill.
- ironyroad
May 14, 2011 at 1:24pm
The face of an Arab Spring in Egypt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgehenton/5717263708
- noga1
May 14, 2011 at 3:57pm
"my return question is, whether or not you entertain the foregoing as a reasonable position or not, what are your thoughts on this?" I didn't realize you were familiar with Roger Scruton's thought, ironyroad. Here is what one (very) progressive intellectual says about him: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=211 “A sure sign of advancing years,” Ian MacWhirter writes, “is when you find yourself agreeing with Roger Scruton.” Scruton—the conservative movement’s leading living philosopher, a blood sport enthusiast, and darling of the tobacco lobby—has won me over too. In his new book, The Uses of Pessimism, he argues that freedom is not the “freedom to believe anything at all, provided you feel better for it,” but “a precious achievement that human communities have arrived at through many sacrifices.” (The author, BTW, in relative terms to myself, is a mere youth, has not yet reached 40.) As for your question: For your (cautious) position about the possible optimistic future of Egyptian democracy to be entirely reasonable you would have to be able to cite a few examples of pronouncements by politicians, or editorials published in daily newspapers that contradict the kind of information I note as emanating from post-Mubarak Egypt and spell very bad news. If you could do that, there might be some grounds for your accusation that my assertions are too abstract, or based on mere doomsday inclination. I point to this: "http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page/posts/172876159436598 and you might counter with this _____ or that ____ piece of news that shows an entirely different aspect of the "revolution" which spells the glimmer of some hope that not everyone has lost their mind in Egypt. Mere hope that "A successful and at least medium-term transformation in the Arab countries" does not seem like a too sound reason for expressing optimism. It actually says: Look, I don't really have any facts to support my hope that things may turn out well but maybe they will and that "maybe" is good enough for me to withhold judgment. Perhaps one might compare it to reasonable doubt in trials. A reasonable doubt has to be based on something concrete, something that fully and logically justifies the doubt. " If, as you say, it is the case that Arab societies cannot, due to culture/religion/psychic make-up or whatever, manage the transformation, what should we do. Tell them to forget about it? Organize military coups? Go completely hands-off" My position is that "we" (presumably pro-democracy Western voices) should make it clear with unambiguous frowns that "we" do not see any reason to continue to cheer on such revolutions that seem to center on war, gratuitous belligerence against their neighbors, disregard for the very immediate needs of their own society, such as basic food, basic rights for minorities, etc. There should be a clear message that these antisemitic manifestations, that xenophobic violence, are categorically unacceptable. (We'll see what Obama says to the Arab world next week).
- noga1
May 14, 2011 at 4:44pm
I just discovered this piece today, which I found very interesting as I haven't read anything from that angle (native to Egypt?) before. I don't know if he echoes your or my perspective more -- a bit of both, maybe: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/middleeast/2011/03/29/egypt-for-real/
- ironyroad
May 14, 2011 at 6:50pm
From your link: "Imagine for a second that the political battles in each district is driven by a clash of economic ideas: What would an Islamist candidate have to offer? What is his economic policy? He has none; he has never needed to. Now he has to come up with one, which creates the real possibility of a split within the Islamists ranks is possible." And how will the so-called Egyptian liberals attempt to effect this split? Tadros in an article from 2009, has an answer: http://www.hnn.us/blogs/entries/119133.html "But anti-Semitism remains the glue holding Egypt's disparate political forces together. This is especially true of the so-called liberals, who think they can traffic on their anti-Semitism to gain favor in quarters where they would otherwise be suspect..." In other words, they will do what has always been the fruitful resort of cynical, immoral opportunists. Again I repeat that no genuine democracy can ever grow when fertilized by such venom.
- noga1
May 14, 2011 at 8:30pm
But he writes this too: "For so long intellectuals have dealt with the Egyptian people as ignorant and uneducated. They have cried for many hours over their sad fate at being born into such a country. That has been their weakness. They never respected their countrymen, and in turn their countrymen never respected them, having recognized their slogans for what they are: empty. They need to talk to the Egyptians, offer them coherent ideas, and trust in man’s capacity to understand his own self-interest. Egyptians are not from Mars. Like all other people in the world, they seek their own good. Egyptian liberals’ job is not to educate them from on high; it is to use their ideas to create programs to further Egyptians’ own interests." And that might be worth pointing out -- taking the two essays together, Tadros's argument is, at least as I read it, that there is a far more urgent problem with antisemitism in the liberal/intellectual milieu than among the average Egyptians because it's there that it receives a kind of elite/educated imprimatur.
- ironyroad
May 14, 2011 at 9:28pm
I don't understand how you conclude that "Tadros's argument is, at least as I read it, that there is a far more urgent problem with antisemitism in the liberal/intellectual milieu than among the average Egyptians". He explicitly writes that "anti-Semitism remains the glue holding Egypt's disparate political forces together". It is the transactional coin with which anyone who wishes to gain influence and power pays his dues to that society. You can't have read the history of the popularity of Nazi ideology in Egypt since the early twentieth century. Again, I will ask you: where are the examples in Egyptian media that support this belief of yours that Egyptians understand or even aspire for, genuine democratic reforms in their education, in their worldview?? Tadros was writing for an American magazine and is, I suspect, trying very hard to gild what he knows is an ungildable lily. He doesn't even trust his own hopes too far. Perhaps we should tolerate antisemitism as a rallying cry in the lead to the September elections, in the hope that if a liberal-minded leader is elected. And then he will get rid of the Islamists, establish a real democracy and the petunias will blossom.
- noga1
May 14, 2011 at 10:01pm
Doesn't look good for Egypt, even Tom Friedman seems to have realized that. Not that he would ever admit that he was wrong. "Watching the Arab uprisings these days leaves me with a smile on my face and a pit in my stomach. The smile comes from witnessing a whole swath of humanity losing its fear and regaining its dignity. The pit comes from a rising worry that the Arab Spring may have been both inevitable and too late. If you are not feeling both these impulses, you’re not paying attention." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/opinion/15friedman.html?ref=opinion
- arnon
May 14, 2011 at 10:56pm
follow US wheat exports...therein lies the fate of Egypt, unless their military decides to occupy Libya's eastern oil fields (which actually makes economic sense although illegal under "international law"). By the time Egypt has their elections, it really will be all about the economy for the 30-40 million living on less than TWOUSD/day and totally dependent on subsidized bread made mostly from the 'soft white' wheat grown in America's Pacific NW. Will Egypt be competing with Yemen for that soft white wheat surplus? Will the Saudis subsidize Egypt or Yemen (or both) wheat imports? have the rumours started that US Navy Seals are really Israeli-manufactured Android fighters, edition 2 of the Termonator class? I just hope Obama drops his 'Israel-Pal conflict is the heart of all Muslim turmoil' mantra in his upcoming big speech...
- K2K
May 15, 2011 at 8:56am
Obama should add the Angry Arab blog to his favourite night time Internet browsing: Liberated Palestine: "On this sad day, one should pledge to the people of Palestine that: We shall not forget; we shall not forgive, ever. That we shall count your dead and injured, one by one. That we know that all Israeli crimes are registered in notebooks--as Mahmud Darwish had said. We pledge that we are committed to: No peace with Israel. No Negotiation with Israel. No recognition of Israel. That all the deeds and treaties by Arab tyrants represent their oil and their polygamous ruling families and the external backers they have. That they don't ever speak for the Arab people. We pledge full return AND compensation. And when Palestine is liberated, we should ensure a safe and peaceful and democratic and secular transfer of power. All flags of Zionist occupation will be discarded but can be used as bathroom mats--we should commit to recycling in liberated Palestine." http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/05/pledge.html BTW, Mahmoud Darwish also said: “Do you know why we Palestinians are famous? Because you are our enemy. The interest in us stems from the interest in the Jewish issue. The interest is in you, not in me. So we have the misfortune of having Israel as an enemy, because it enjoys unlimited support. And we have the good fortune of having Israel as our enemy, because the Jews are the center of attention. You’ve brought us defeat and renown.” Lucky Palestinians that the Jews are their enemies. That glue that bonds all Arabs also works well in Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Britain, and American campuses.
- noga1
May 15, 2011 at 9:42am
Noga: For those who read Hebrew, a new article by Ben Dror Yemini: The Arab Apartheid. I did not have time to translate it. Maybe you can. http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=f2b4c1b55be76d1e6d7b777256ea0370&id=2428
- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD
May 15, 2011 at 9:51am
whatever will Obama, and the EU, do when Syria and Lebanon formally expel all their palestinian "refugees unto the fifth generation"? Was yesterday was just a rehearsal? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME17Ak02.html "Prelude to an Intifada" By Victor Kotsev my paraphrase: "let them eat hate"
- K2K
May 16, 2011 at 11:33am