Are They On Drugs?

With the Republican Party in such visible disarray, one wonders, are they on drugs?
On the Rachel Maddow show, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan had to be drugged when he actually said that Senator Obama has always been on the side of President Bush!
The Republicans picked John McCain as their candidate, is this evidence of judgment under the influence?
Bush said that he couldn’t remember if he used cocaine.
The only way you could forget using it would be if you’ve used so much of it you’d damaged your brain.
The leading conservative thinker in America, Rush Limbaugh, was recently arrested for drug crimes.
Some observers think that the problem is that Republicans are just not very smart, after all, they point out, look how the hair- brained schemes of the Republicans in power the last eight years have damaged American interests.
No one with half a brain would have instituted such ridiculous policies.
I believe this supports the “they are on drugs” position rather than the “Republicans just aren’t very bright” position.
Then there is Palin.
I like her.
Everybody likes her.
We feel sorry for her.
But this seems to be an outright example of the dangers of drug abuse in those who picked her to possibly be the President of the U.S.

My advice to the Republican Party?

From now on, please, Just Say No!

With Friends Like Bush/McCain Who Needs Palestinians?

With friends like Bush-McCain We Don’t Need the Palestinians 

Biden has been campaigning for Senator Obama  and beginning with a recitation of his Israel bona fides - which include having met then prime minister Golda Meir on his first trip to Israel and having pushed pro-Israel legislation - as well as vouching for Obama's.

"My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head," he declared. "I promise you, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama's campaign as vice president if I had any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shared the same commitment to Israel that I share."

"He wants that message to go out with these people being his voice," explained Michael Adler, a former NJDC chair who headed Biden's national finance effort during his own presidential run.

He referred to the "unfortunate" need for Biden and others to counter the "ridiculous propaganda" questioning Obama's support of Israel and his own background.

"When you scare elderly people by saying he's bad for Israel, he's a Muslim, the [more] you need to have Senator Biden and people in this room go on the offensive," said Adler, referring to Jewish voters in his home state of Florida. "They will not vote because they have been barraged with misinformation."

Adler felt Biden had helped make the case, noting he traveled with the vice presidential nominee when he visited southern Florida Jewish communities earlier in the month.

"There's a real sense in the Jewish community that he is just adding to the ticket," Adler said, referring to Biden's history of ties to the population and record on Israel.

Biden spoke little about Middle East policy in his remarks Tuesday, however, focusing more on the financial situation and the need for change in these elections.

He did, though, call on his audience to "imagine a president who won't wait until his seventh year in office to discover the need for American leadership in the Middle East peace process, who will call on Arab states now to begin normalizing relations with Israel, where there's consequences for their failure to do so."

Speaking about Iraq, he also pledged, "We will end this war."

On Wednesday in Ohio, though, Biden devoted a large portion of a major foreign policy address to the issue of Iran, which he said "poses a genuine challenge to the security of the United States and Israel and our allies."

He defended Obama's stated interest in talking to the Iranians, noting that five former US secretaries of state recently made a similar recommendation.

"Our allies need to know that the United States will go the extra diplomatic mile," he said. "And if we do and Iran does not respond, our allies are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and move toward more robust sanctions and possibly even other alternatives."

Have Bush McCain been true friends of Israel?

The following comments were originally  published on Israpundit by yamit82 — September 6, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

What has Bush McCain done for Israel?  What are their pro Zionist Credentials? Road Map? 2 State Solution? 50 Billion in military and Nuke aid and sales to Israel’s Enemies? Enforcing tight sanctions against Iran?

Bush- McCain were the first American administration to openly call for a Palestinian Terrorist State within eretz Israel.

Briefly here is a synopsis of American perfidy against Israel: Debate the points true or false!

 

In 1948, America did not force the Arabs to stay out of the war. American companies went on working with Arabs during the war. America did not sell Israel weapons. When Israel began to win, America quickly got involved and arranged an armistice. America perceived Israel as a Soviet proxy, and did not want an expansion of Soviet influence.

 

In 1956, the story is well known. Russia did not support Israel, and America felt free to press for Israeli withdrawal. America never exerted such pressure on Egypt or other Arab countries at war with Israel. In 1963, Arabs conducted an undeclared war of attrition. The number of victims was close to a conventional local war. Seven years before that, Israel proved her ability to deal with the strongest Arab army. Why did not Israel mobilize in response to incessant provocations? The memoirs are available, and a few years ago one could still talk to cabinet ministers of the time. America strongly urged Israeli government to desist from war, and warned of international isolation if Israel starts it. In 1967, America did not prevent Egypt from re-militarizing Sinai (compare that with American tolerance of Germany re-militarizing Alsace-Lorraine). America, however, twisted hands of Israeli government, pushed it to wait, wait, and wait, perhaps Arabs won’t attack. Again, America expressly prohibited Israel to preempt. Only in the nick of the time, Israeli government broke free from its American masters and let the IDF to smash the Arabs. America forced Israel to stop short of Cairo and Damascus - when every military strategist agreed that repelling aggression without disarming the enemy is a recipe for a new war. And it came in 1973. Russia supported Egypt and Syria with military shipments years prior to the war and during it. Russians manned SAM batteries and piloted Egyptian planes. America did nothing to help Israel. Only when Israelis crossed the Suez, clearly winning the war, the first American aid has arrived - too late to be used. In return for its non-existent help, America forced Israel to stop at the Suez, rather than flatten Cairo, as the Egyptians would have done with Tel Aviv.

 

American involvement in the Middle East is unnecessary and quite contrary to the interests of the American people who pay hundreds of billions of dollars only to see oil prices skyrocket. Involvement works against Israel as well. That American aid promotes systemic deviations in the Israeli economy is one thing. That American assistance buys the US the right to stop Israel from pursuing efficient policies is another. More important, however, politically correct America balances help for Israel with help for the Arabs. Israel can live and fight without American aid; the Arabs cannot. The balance of aid works against Israel. And the invasion of Iraq, which created a failed state, a terrorist base at Israel’s borders instead of an acceptable dictatorship, is also a product of American involvement in the Middle East.

 

In 1948, America did not force the Arabs to stay out of the war. American companies went on working with Arabs during the war. America did not sell Israel weapons. When Israel began to win, America quickly got involved and arranged an armistice. America perceived Israel as a Soviet proxy, and did not want an expansion of Soviet influence.

 

In 1956, the story is well known. Russia did not support Israel, and America felt free to press for Israeli withdrawal. America never exerted such pressure on Egypt or other Arab countries at war with Israel. In 1963, Arabs conducted an undeclared war of attrition. The number of victims was close to a conventional local war. Seven years before that, Israel proved her ability to deal with the strongest Arab army. Why did not Israel mobilize in response to incessant provocations? The memoirs are available, and a few years ago one could still talk to cabinet ministers of the time. America strongly urged Israeli government to desist from war, and warned of international isolation if Israel starts it. In 1967, America did not prevent Egypt from re-militarizing Sinai (compare that with American tolerance of Germany re-militarizing Alsace-Lorraine). America, however, twisted hands of Israeli government, pushed it to wait, wait, and wait, perhaps Arabs won’t attack. Again, America expressly prohibited Israel to preempt. Only in the nick of the time, Israeli government broke free from its American masters and let the IDF to smash the Arabs. America forced Israel to stop short of Cairo and Damascus - when every military strategist agreed that repelling aggression without disarming the enemy is a recipe for a new war. And it came in 1973. Russia supported Egypt and Syria with military shipments years prior to the war and during it. Russians manned SAM batteries and piloted Egyptian planes. America did nothing to help Israel. Only when Israelis crossed the Suez, clearly winning the war, the first American aid has arrived - too late to be used. In return for its non-existent help, America forced Israel to stop at the Suez, rather than flatten Cairo, as the Egyptians would have done with Tel Aviv.

 

Our American friends are not only ours. America is also the friend of Wahhabite Saudi Arabia, totalitarian Egypt, the Al Jazeera state of Qatar, Bedouin Jordan, Islamist Kuwait, terrorist Iraq, and just about every other enemy of Israel. Even Russia would be a more reliable and attractive imperial master for Israel than is the US.

Our American friends sell immense quantities of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, provide $1.4 billion annual aid to Egypt, fought for Kuwait, and spent more in Iraq in the four years than given to Israel in forty years. The US plays it nice: vetoes the UN’s empty proclamations against Israel, scorns Ahmadinejad for  anti-Israeli feelings held by all Muslims, and pats amenable Israeli leaders on the shoulder. My position always has been: Arabs must be the only victims of the peace process

End of Comments

.None of this even touches upon McCain's obvious unsuitability to be the President .  His confusion over simple issues, names of world leaders and their relationship to the U.S.  What are Shiites, what are Sunnis, where they train and so on.He picked Sarah Palin to take over in the very possible event that he would be too ill to finish his term.

Can you imagine Sarah Palin as President???

 

Michael Blackburn, Sr.

 

 

 

Shana tova umetuka

Despite the solemnity of the occasion, Rosh Hashanah is a festival, so it is an occasion for nice clothes, special meals and good spirits
"Out with the old year and its curses! In with the new year and its blessings!"
L'shana tova tikateiv v'teikhateim!
May you be inscribed and sealed for a good and sweet year of happiness and growth!

Chasidim like to bless each other not only for a good year - "Shana tova" - but also a sweet one - "Shana tova umetuka". The idea is that the good should not only be in G-d's eyes, but good from our perspective too - e.g. it tastes good.

McCain Survives Debate

McCain was spry at times, and one could almost hear his supporters yelling, “Go get ‘im Granpa!”
But as David Gergen said, “He lost the debate because he needed more than a tie.”
He didn’t collapse or have a seizure, but he did a lot of smirking and sneering and inappropriate facial gestures that have become part of his baggage.
He couldn’t pronounce achmidinijad’s name.
He said he wouldn’t sit down with the President of Spain without preconditions, which actually is a step forward for him since last week he didn’t know the President of Spain’s name at all and he thought Spain was in Latin America.
McCain didn’t seem to have a clue about how to deal with the economic mess either.
Obama was gentlemanly as always, that is the kind of man he is, but he just seemed so much more knowledgeable and able than McCain.
It seemed incomprehensible after the debate that anyone would vote for McCain to be President, he obviously does not have the skills or intellect or intelligence to be a leader.
Perhaps the major flaw in McCain’s performance was his inability to look at Obama.
He appeared discomfited, angry, surly, brittle and old.
As he said, “I was not elected to be Miss congeniality in the Senate.”
I wonder why?

There may be some disagreement of the fringes of politics, some on the hard right thinking McCain won, and on the left thinking Obama totally thrashed McCain.
But it does seems honest to say, that on a debate which is McCain’s “area of expertise”, he survived, and little more.

Michael Blackburn

What Do They Mean?

By leftists they mean moderates.

That is  how "conservatives" define anyone who does not support their ill-defined agenda.
Barry Goldwater would be appalled at those who call themselves conservatives today.
The Republicans have given us the largest deficits in history, the largest government, and have trashed personal freedom.
Libertarians are conservatives.
Republicans are not.
As for the race issue, forget about the polls and talk to white people who trust you. Many whites are more prejudiced against blacks than they would ever admit to pollsters. Most blacks are extremely prejudiced as well. Look at their role models, listen to their music.

Look at what the drug war has done to them.
It has made them a race of criminals.

Listen, a young man goes to Iraq, perhaps he sees an incident of violence, he comes home, is diagnosed with ptsd,  is called a hero and cared for for the rest of his life.
Do black children who see violence everyday in their neighborhoods, who see their friends and family members killed suffer from ptsd?

I talk to black people every day, I see the racism, and I work to reduce it.
But to be preached to by people like George Bush and McCain, to be told that government can't help the poor, to be told this by white people who were born wealthy and never had to lift a finger to struggle is bound to cause resentment.

We have a trillion dollars to spend on killing Arabs who were no threat to us, we have billions of dollars to give away to failed corporations, but we can't afford health care or decent schools for the poor.
John Kennedy, who  most conservatives today  would call a radical leftist, once said, "We who are most fortunate have a duty to help those who are least fortunate."

I believe America can come together.
I believe that those who believe, as McCain and the Republicans do,
in "me first" are really shortsighted fools.
I try everyday to become a bigger and better person.
When I come across a black person with an obvious attitude, and a dislike for me even before he has met me because of the color of my skin, I try to reject the easy course of disregarding him because of his misguided views, and make him a friend, or at least force him to realize that not all white people are bad.
I really believe that fate has put us together with the black race in what was once and may again be the freest nation on the earth for a reason.

I believe Obama is a link in the chain of completing our joint endeavor.
As he said, "Its not about white people, its not about black people. Its about all people." 

Who Do They Like, Who Do They Hate

Barry Rubin
September 18, 2008

These two polls are very interesting especially when compared to each other, and are not so bad.

Contrary to what we think there are basically two models:

1. Strong support for Israel as against the PA: US
2. Relative evenhandedness: France, Germany, and UK.

We are not seeing results of high support for Palestinians versus Israel, even in a country like France, even after years of anti-Israel propaganda.

Note that there are no countries where support for the Palestinians is higher than that for Israel. In Germany there is greater support for Israel; in France and the UK more evenhanded.

But even this understates the case. The Palestinians are represented in this poll by the PA, which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as moderate, nonviolence, and ready to make peace with Israel. Comparing Israel and the PA is going to end up being more even in result than comparing Israel to Fatah, the PLO, Hamas or talking about Israelis versus Palestinians.

After all, the argument would be that the PA are those Palestinians who want to live in peace with Israel so liking both means wanting the two sides to make peace and have a two-state solution. Presumably, most of those who liked the parties do not perceive a positive statement about the PA as anti-Israel.

Note also that in France, Germany and-to a lesser extent-the UK, support for Israel is not that far behind positive views of the US. After all, if the US can only get 47 percent in France is it so surprising Israel gets 41? And the same applies to Germany (51, 47); though the gap in the UK is a bit wider it is not that extreme.

The situation in Turkey is very bad since in recent years the support for the PA is based on the idea of Muslim solidarity. The high results for the US and USSR are also surprising. Clearly, the Islamic-oriented regime has had a big effect on popular thinking or, to put it differently, its election reflects shifts in public opinion.

So if the result isn't great it isn't terrible either, better than we would expect.

Poll 1

"Transatlantic Trends 2008, a project of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. and the Compagnia di San Paolo (Italy), asked respondents in various countries in June to rate their feelings toward countries, with 100 meaning very warm and favorable and 0 unfavorable.

U.S. respondents: US-83, Russia-48, Israel-62, PA-36, Iran-25
French respondents: US-47, Russia-41, Israel-41, PA-40, Iran-24
German respondents: US-51, Russia-49, Israel-47, PA-39, Iran-29
UK respondents: US-56, Russia-47, Israel-45, PA-45, Iran-33
Turkish respondents: US-14, Russia-18, Israel-8, PA-44, Iran-32 (Transatlantic Trends)"

Now look at Poll 2 (below). I have reorganized it for better understanding:

Negative views

Australia Jews 11
France: Muslims 38; Jews 20
Germany: Muslims 50; Jews 25
Spain: Muslims 52; Jews 46
Poland: Muslims 46; Jews 36
Russia: Jews 34
UK: Muslims 23; Jews 9
US: Muslims 23; Jews 7

Some points:

• Australia, the US, and the UK are by far the most tolerant. Despite European "sweetness and light" and "multiculturalism", they are far more bigoted. Note that Americans are ridiculed as narrow-minded and intolerant by Europeans. The shoe is on the other foot.
• Jews are always less unpopular than Muslims.
• Spain, Poland, and Russia can be fairly described as anti-Semitic nations in terms of popular opinion. History is pretty consistent.
• The level of anti-Semitism in France and Germany is quite high although not characteristic.
• Who would have dared dream 20 years ago that one in five Germans would be anti-Semitic? I wonder what the figure would have been if a poll had been taken there-or in France for that matter--say, in 1900?
• Muslims have legitimate concerns about high levels of hatred.

What is amazing in these findings is that anti-Semitism has risen in virtually all countries since 2005. Yet the level of violence has been much lower than during the previous five years, not to mention the Hamas takeover and growing radical Islamist anti-Semitism (a negative or a positive example?), improved Western diplomatic stances toward Israel, and Israel's tireless efforts to prove it wants peace, massive Jewish philanthropy to prove they are good citizens, and so on.

Theodor Herzl was right on everything-including the eternal nature of anti-Semitism and the inability of Jewish action to end it-except that Israel's existence would reduce it.

Poll 2

"Growing numbers of people in several major European countries say they have an unfavorable opinion of Jews and Muslims. A spring 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center's Pew Global Attitudes Project finds 46% of the Spanish rating Jews unfavorably, with 34% of Russians and 36% of Poles echoing this view. Significant numbers of Germans (25%) and French (20%) also express negative opinions of Jews. Other figures reported include Great Britain (9%), Australia (11%), and the U.S. (7%).

Fully half of Spanish (52%) and German respondents (50%) rate Muslims unfavorably. Negative opinions about Muslims are found in Poland (46%), France (38%), Britain (23%) and the U.S. (23%)." (Pew)

---

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online.

---

Method In Their Madness

"Though this be madness, yet is their method in it...Hamlet"
Barry Rubin
September 15, 2008

One evening you're walking down a street. A robber jumps on you to steal your wallet. You fight back and after a protracted battle you injure him enough so that he flees the scene.

The next day newspapers report that you assaulted a poor innocent man to mug him. From pulpits, religious leaders denounce you as a bad moral example that should be punished. Politicians urge that the forces of the law be deployed against you. Your attempts to defend yourself are ignored and dismissed as lies and excuses. Most people never even hear your version.

And then after all that, someone explains: "You know the reason why people don't like you? It's the way you behave; after all you assaulted that poor man."

That, my friends, is another way for saying that your policy is the cause of your problems.

Of course, the parallel outlined above is too simple-deeds have been done, mistakes made, conflicts occurred--and yet it does convey something essential about the Middle East and the September 11 attacks, as well as being part of a much broader pattern of how much of the area deals with the United States, Israel, and the West in general.

For example, the most outrageous lies and exaggerations are told in the Arabic-language world about Israel. This material then serves as a basis for explaining that Israel is hated, under constant terrorist attack, and targeted for genocide because of what it does.

But the question remains: does according to whom?

Or consider this question: What's the main lesson the Middle East has drawn from September 11? That terrorism is bad? Don't mess with America? Radical Islamism is dangerous and irrational?

Surely, some have done so. Yet probably the dominant idea is that the United States is responsible for the attack on itself. The less "sophisticated" idea, though common among the well-educated, is that the event was a direct conspiracy; the more "educated" notion is as a response to U.S. actions. And this latter concept itself comes in two versions: the more radical (you had it coming to you) and the more moderate (regrettable but necessary).

Just because the Middle East refuses to learn from the experience, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't.

First, we should understand that a sphere of dictatorship requires a surrounding universe of lies to protect it. Of course, (being a Western thinker requires I engage in self-criticism) that doesn't mean Western democracies are perfect by any means. But they do try hard, and their systems seek to correct themselves when they make mistakes because democracies have numerous independent people and institutions protected by freedom of speech who can challenge and correct each other, presenting different viewpoints.

In Arabic-speaking states, diversity means a choice between agreeing with the dictatorship or being even more extreme in misrepresenting reality.

Second, this situation is not just a matter of repression or regime misinformation to be corrected by either regime change from outside or massive apologies and concessions. There is a popular base of support for the system based on culture, history, and interpretation of religion which makes such ideas appeal to the masses.

As Tarek Heggy, the most incisive contemporary Arab intellectual, wrote in 1998, "Even the most outlandish statement, if repeated often enough, can...be accepted as true...in a society in which half the population is illiterate and the other half displays only a very modest standard of education...." This situation provides, "A fertile breeding ground for the most untenable, demagogical and unfounded assertions to take root and flourish."

The only solution is to set different goals and interpretations of the world through rethinking, reform, and education. Western glorifications of the Middle East's status quo-these are customs which must be preserved, how dare you criticize people's beliefs and offend their sensibilities?-will merely ensure another century of bloodshed, dictatorship, and poverty.

Third, just because you're nice and tolerant doesn't mean you're wrong. Otherwise, you'll never understand that just because it is the "other" doesn't mean it's wise. No amount of apology or concession will change those who hate you on the basis of ideology and need to hate you to preserve their political, ideological, and cultural system.

Or as former Syrian information minister (note the significance of his past job) Mahdi Daklallah explained recently regarding his regime's philosophy, "But who cares about the truth?" His words, claiming the United States planned the September 11 attacks, apply much better to the worldview in which he exists: "What is important, always, is the use of the events in order to carry out a strategy planned in advance...."

Fourth, politics happens. The Islamist upsurge is no more a mere reaction to what foreigners have done in the Middle East than was the French revolution (Austria did attack France), Russian Revolution (World War One undermined the Czarist regime), Nazi revolution (the Versailles treaty and indemnities punished Germany and angered its people), and so on.

The point in discussing the distortion of September 11 in the Arabic-speaking world is that the vast majority of issue discussions there are dominated by lies and nonsense. What is needed is to understand the intellectual preconceptions and social-political structures that create this situation.

Reform-minded Arab intellectuals have repeatedly made these points and been ignored, or vilified, for doing so. Shortly after the first anniversary of September 11, the Egyptian writer Abd al-Moneim Said explained the response "was to deny that the perpetrators were Arab and that the event had any connection with Arab society and culture." Wild conspiracy theories were spread precisely because to confront the tragedy's implications would require examining real problems "which Arab societies have been so assiduously avoiding." The more Middle Eastern terrorism spread globally, "the greater was the rush to look the other way." Five years later, that statement is all the more true.

We hear endlessly that the problem is the West doesn't understand the Middle East. The truth is the exact opposite: the Middle East doesn't understand the West and, by the same token, doesn't understand what it needs to do to get out of the hole it has dug for itself.

---

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of theMiddle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

---

The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167    Herzliya, 46150   Israel
Email: info@gloriacenter.org   Phone: +972-9-960-2736   Fax: +972-9-956-8605

 

Faith In Invisible Creatures

One of the major obstacles in combating Muslim extremism is the fact that western leaders cling to a belief system that is every bit as flawed as Islam.
I refer here to theism.
The conversation about Islam is inevitably going to devolve to "Allah isn't G_d, Our G_d is G_d."
Muslim criminal behaviour is not new in terms of crimes committed on behalf of a god.
Its as old as history.
More murders were committed on behalf of Chrisitianity than Islam.
However, Christianity has evolved, and today Christian murders are virtually not occurring
Christianity has actually become a force for good, although it is still run by crooks whose main interest is lining their own pockets.
The good that is done would be more beneficial if the G-d part was removed, and people were just obeying the concious desire to be moral.
The scope of crime committed by Muslims today dwarfs anything the other theists are doing.
Every day women are routinely, brutally enslaved under Islam.
They crush the spirit and souls of half of their population.

Many Americans have foolish notions about morality and women as well.
Christians believe that the fall of man came as a result of woman's inablity to resist temptation, and her ability to sucker a man.

As far as anyone knows, there is no invisible man in the sky who has anything to do with the creation of the earth, or mankind or anything else.

We can wait for the inevitable evolvement of Islam into something resembling todays civilized Christianity, or we can oppose it as the wrong religion, or we can be honest and start telling the Muslims that they are murdering people because of a fairy tale.
Like Christianity once did.

Bob marley once said, "Some people think Great G_d will come from the sky,
Take away everything, and make everybody feel high,
But if you knew what life was worth,
You would look for yours on earth..."

We all need to see the light.
Its called reason and morality.
And it doesn't come from an invisible man.

The Arab World's Intellectual Mess: A Case Study
Barry Rubin
September 10, 2008

MEMRI has released report Number 1847 on September 8, 2008, entitled, "Egyptian Researcher Muhammad Al-Said Idris: The American Response to 9/11 Proves that the Official Version of Events Is False," the transcript of an interview he gave on Al-Rafidein TV on September 8, 2008. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1847.htm
This kind of talk, of course, is both silly and dangerous. Silly because to deny that al-Qaida planned and carried out the September 11, 2003, attacks is a lie not based on any evidence and quite contrary to a huge amount of evidence.
It is dangerous because people will die and terrorist acts committed motivated by such nonsense. Indeed, one day the accumulation of lies may bring down the government of Egypt itself, leading to tens or even hundreds of thousands of casualties.
But that much is obvious. What is interesting is to analyze this interview as a case study of what goes on in the Middle East--and sadly shows signs of spreading to the West--and determines a great deal of public opinion and national policy.
Idris is no marginal figure but a researcher at Egypt's Al-Ahram center for strategic studies, arguably the Arab world's most respected think tank. It is nominally part of the newspaper but actually under government control. So Idris speaks for a powerful research center, Egypt's leading newspaper, and the Arab world's most single important government.
Let's look at this as an exercise in basic logic. Idris mentions there is an "official American version according to which 19 Arabs carried out this operation [9/11]." Of course, a serious researcher should add that this version coincides with that of Usama bin Ladin and his al-Qaida movement and of all reputable news media, many of which despise the Bush administration.
Why does Idris put it this way? Because he is used to government control of information. The dictatorship has a line; everyone sticks to it, there is no truly independent media or judiciary or academia; and the regime lies. Thus, he is unable to distinguish between a Western democratic system and a Middle Eastern dictatorship.
Next he says there are:
"Other versions, which refute the official version, say that there must have been a certain type of bomb over there, which nobody [but the Americans] could have obtained, and that it was this bomb that brought down the Twin Towers. [They say] that there are American elements involved in this affair, getting people to believe the [official] scenario, which was immediately accepted."
To be serious, one must cite specific examples, examine the credentials of those making these claims, and critically consider the accuracy of the claims. This is part of the scientific method, of the heritage of the Enlightenment.
For Idris and his colleagues, however, none of this exists. They are free to pick what suits their propaganda needs, provide no sources, weigh no credibility, and ask no questions that might challenge these versions.
Even in this presentation there is an internal contradiction. Conspiracy theorists have indeed stated that explosives were used to detonate the buildings but to my knowledge no one has spoken of some special bomb which only the U.S. government can get. (Only nuclear weapons would seem to fit that category.) This is Idris's own invention.
Contrary to an independent media, the interviewer simply reinforces Idris's viewpoint, not asking for sources or challenging anything:
"Interviewer: In addition, many building and engineering experts say that the impact of the planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers."
What experts? And, of course, the statement calls out for the response: Yes, and many more building and engineering experts, with better credentials, coming from different institutions, and having a wide variety of political views, say that the impact of the planes could and did bring down the Twin Towers."
At a minimum, an interviewer might say: "There are experts on both sides. Why is the view you present more accurate?"
But this is the spirit of an open marketplace of ideas, of debates, of systematic inquiry almost totally missing in the Arabic-speaking world.
Yet then Idris gives another argument even more fantastic than the first, which reveals far more about Egypt and the Arabic-speaking world than about America:
"Idris: That's one version, but more importantly, the immediate American reaction to the event seemed like it had been planned in advance. When an unexpected natural event takes place, the reaction is confused and disordered, until people get a grip on themselves."
Consider what he is saying: the United States has a crisis. But we know that in the Arabic-speaking world, regimes are very inefficient, no planning has been done, things don't work right. Therefore it is impossible that America can suffer an attack and then the government can quickly decide and implement policies. In short, America must be like Egypt.
And since efficiency, good decisionmaking, and organizational efficiency are impossible, the Americans must have decided in advance, knowing about the attack and indeed carrying it out themselves or they couldn't have reacted quickly:
"Interviewer: It takes some time...Idris: Yes, but in this case, all the instructions were immediately ready, and all the policies and instructions were issued.Interviewer: What do you mean?Idris: This proves that the official version is false. It also proves that there is a movement within the U.S. which has an agenda, and which will use any means to implement this agenda. This event was convenient for the movement, and it began to implement its agenda."
In Egypt, public opinion is unimportant. All decisions are made behind the scenes. Therefore, he assumes, America must be like that. Democracy must be a façade. It wasn't that the American people identified the source of the attack and decided to retaliate. In Idris's and the Arabic-speaking world's conception; only a small group can do so. And there is no such thing as the national interest, only the selfish agendas of shadowy groups seeking to exploit every occasion for its own good.
Of course, there are many groups with agendas in American life but they cannot easily ignore the American people as a whole and a wide range of independent institutions or competing forces to pull strings as if all of society, government, national debate, and public opinion are puppets. They especially could not hush up such behavior, especially when the most powerful news media is aching to find something to discredit the government and attract an audience for itself. Yet this kind of thing does happen in the Arabic-speaking world every day.
The point, then, is not that Idris and many others--let's be honest and say the vast majority of issue discussions in the Arabic-speaking world--speak lies and nonsense, it is to understand the intellectual preconceptions and social-political structures that create this situation.
We hear over and over again that the problem is that the West doesn't understand the Middle East. The truth is the exact opposite: the Middle East doesn't understand the West and is crippled by its own internal problems.

Waiting For Something

Barry Rubin

September 7, 2008

If I had to nominate the funniest cartoon I've ever seen, it was a very simple one showing a driver in a car at a "T" junction. He was staring desperately at three signs that read: No Left Turn; No Right Turn; No U-Turn.
The Middle East isn't quite like that, but the current moment--though surely temporarily--seems somewhat akin to that drawing.
It isn't as if there weren't lots of action, but that the action is merely like the above-mentioned driver revving his engine and honking his horn. I wouldn't go so far as to invoke William Shakespeare's line from "Macbeth": "Full of sound, and fury, signifying nothing." But the current moment's antics surely don't signify progress.
The Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel-Syria peace negotiations are going nowhere; the French plan to charm Syria into moderation is going nowhere; the Western attempt to lightly press (not push) Iran into abandoning its nuclear campaign is...well, you get the picture.
And then we await upcoming changes in Israeli politics (who will be prime minister and when will be elections), in American politics (who will be the next president in January), in Palestinian politics (how long will PA head Mahmoud Abbas's term last, a year or less?), in Egyptian politics (when will Egyptian President Husni Mubarak name a successor or die), and in Iranian politics (who will be elected president next June).
Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's important to understand that the impasses within the Middle East are not determined by those events, which have their own deeper, internal causes. One would think from many sources that if only President George Bush tried harder or Israel had a more stable government that there would be an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty next week. Comforting and hopeful, perhaps, but stupid.
Come to think of it, the most interesting aspect of Middle East politics today is not so much what actually happens but whether leaders will understand what is going on and devise policies that have some relationship to reality.
What's really important? While terrorist attacks make the headlines, the real historical news is being made by the quiet, daily battles for hearts, minds, and institutions between Arab regimes and Islamist oppositions. The future is being written in the internal maneuverings in which the hard-hardliners in Hamas have kicked out the relatively less-hard hardliners in the Gaza Strip. It is being assembled by the PA's total immobility regarding economic or social development and reducing corruption.
The trend is being set as the West convinces Iran and Syria that they can get away with anything, specifically continuing radical policies not only without cost but even with apparent diplomatic gains. It won't be much longer, they are saying in Tehran and Damascus, until the West gives way entirely. Syria gets Lebanon and no investigation of its terrorist assassinations there; Iran gets nuclear weapons; while Europe and America accept this new status quo.
In search of having a list of great achievements for U.S. policy under the Bush Administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, who is being good this week. Nothing has changed substantially except Qadhafi was intimidated by a moment of perceived U.S. power, which has now passed. Given Qadhafi's proverbial restlessness, imaginative brain, and likely view that America is not so strong, this era of good feelings might not last very long.
In Iraq, every turnover of a province or statistical downturn of terrorist attacks is a signal of relative success for recent U.S. policy there. Yet this development, as good as it is, surely isn't a one-way street. Sunni tribes may not stay bought; tremendous factionalism within the Shia majority could blow up the situation. Trying to handle the repeatedly postponed issue of who controls the city of Kirkuk could lead to Arab-Kurdish conflict.
Again, though, the story is being written in the details. A new Iraq could be emerging whose main allies are the United States and Iran, a result of the Sunni Arab world's terrible mishandling of the Iraq issue, treating the Iraqi regime as a virtual pariah state.
The misunderstanding of all of this relates to what a high-ranking State Department official used to privately call "the sword in the stone" thesis. (It's such a powerful concept that even this person nowadays has fallen under its spell). Only the true king, went some variants on the legend of King Arthur, could pull the sword Excalibur from the rock. The Arab-Israeli conflict, or more generally the unstable Middle East, becomes the diplomatic equivalent. Solve it, and your name will live for all time. Oh, and you get a Nobel Peace Prize for your mantelpiece.
And so many believe that if only there was some brilliant ruler with the right ideas, everything in the Middle East could be solved. Unfortunately, this idea is usually embraced by naïve politicians with the wrong ideas. Senator Barrack Obama is currently on that list, and French President Francois Sarkozy has apparently nominated himself.
In the Middle East, the same thing takes the form of a great resistance fighter, with Salah al-Din the role model. At this point, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Asad raise their hands and shout, "Me! Me!"
Note well that in the West this idea is associated with being nice to the extremists through concessions and confidence-building, while in the Middle East it is associated with being tough and violent, smiting the infidels hip and thigh. That contrast alone should tell you something.
What is needed is not some super new plan, a surfeit of charm, or the great leader but rather a great change in Middle East ideologies and societies. Not only is that process a difficult one, but it isn't even starting. To cite one example, in 2008, Palestinian moderation and realism is no greater than it was in 1988 and arguably worse than it was in 1998. To note another, there are more radical Islamists than ever. If anything, things are headed in the wrong direction and a lot of the mainstream ideas about in the West would make things worse.
Sort of makes nothing happening sound better.

Things We're Not Told

Barry Rubin


Published on Blackburn
September 7, 2008

In the olden days, when night watchmen patrolled the streets of towns, they had a standard chant: "Ten o'clock and all is well!" Sleep soundly; nothing's wrong.
Each week, when I start to write this column I hope to be able to do the equivalent. I could just write one sentence: "This week, the stories are fairly and accurately reported so there's nothing to write about."
Unfortunately, for your reading time, my workload, and the state of the world, each week there is indeed something to write about. Alas, such is true this week.
Increasingly, print media coverage comes from Associated Press and Reuters as newspapers close down costly foreign bureaus. This should be good news since these two wire services are supposed to be fair, objective, and balanced--even bland--in their presentation of events. At times in the past they have been biased against Israel, though not all the time by any means and also aware that it was not right to slant their coverage. Like Adam and Eve, driven from the Garden of Eden, they knew their nakedness and were ashamed.
Nowadays, however, both shame and restraint are gone. Many articles--again not all--are extraordinarily biased. For this to happen requires several things:
· The reporters know they will not be punished for doing so, either by verbal criticism, a slowing of their career rise, or firing.
· Editors know the same.
· High-ranking executives do not fear the complaints of their media subscribers.
· And all have redefined the purpose of journalism from fairness and accuracy to political advocacy.
Of course, they will say that this is all nonsense and they do a very good job, thank you very much. The problem, however, is that it is so ridiculously easy to show this isn't true that it is hard to believe that the evidence will not persuade at least those outside these organizations that the case is proven.
One of the most common patterns, presented repeatedly in my columns on AP, is the presentation of the Palestinian but not the Israeli side.
A second is to give Israelis who oppose their country's policy and support Palestinian positions more space than the Israeli government and mainstream view.
A third is to blame Israel for problems but not the Palestinians, or at least not the Palestinian Authority or Fatah. It is permissible to criticize Hamas.
Among the most frequent abuses is to say what the Palestinians want but not what Israel needs; to stress alleged Israeli failures to meet commitments but not even to mention--even as issues raised--Palestinian failures.
Consider Mark Lavie, "Palestinians reject Israel's offer on interim peace plan," September 1, 2008. It is true that the lead attributes Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's rejection of Israel's idea for an interim peace agreement as "insisting on an all-or-nothing approach that virtually ruled out an accord by a January target date." Yet this is more than made up for by the space given for Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat to explain his side's position:
"We want an agreement to end the [Israeli] occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."
What does Israel want? We don't know. We could be told: a permanent end to the conflict, incitement, and terrorism along with security guarantees for a starter. One might add border modifications or other things. But I literally cannot remember ever seeing such a passage.
We are told:
"Officials in Olmert's office said Israel has proposed giving the Palestinians all of Gaza, 93 percent of the West Bank along with Israeli land equivalent to 5.5 percent of the West Bank, as well as a land corridor through Israel to link the two territories. The Palestinians have said that offer is unacceptable."
But we are not told what the Palestinians offered Israel.
There is, however, room for two paragraphs of Palestinian complaints:
"....The Palestinians complain bitterly about continued Israeli construction in West Bank settlements, despite an Israeli pledge to halt the building as part of a 2003 peace plan that still serves as the framework for negotiations. Abbas aide Yasser Abed Rabbo called settlement construction "the most critical issue that threatens the whole peace process now."
"The Palestinians accuse Israel of swallowing up West Bank land that they claim for their state. Israel counters that it is not expanding settlements; rather, it is building inside settlement blocs it plans to keep in a final peace accord."
Does Israel have complaints? Do Israelis accuse the Palestinians of doing anything?
The rest is silence.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle- East (Wiley).

An ApartmentHouse Is Not A homeland

Professor Rubin

Barry Rubin

September 3, 2008

I read recently that Labour party leader and minister of defense Ehud Barak is trying to sell his luxury apartment for 40 million shekels which is, at current exchange rates...well, a lot of money. In fact it is about 10 times what the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's apartment sold for not long ago.
Like many people selling their apartments or houses, Barak must be setting the price too high. As any real estate agent can tell you, if you ask for too much money you might not make a sale. On the other hand, if you have patience, someone may come along and meet your price or something close to it.
And then it hit me: this is the ideal strategy for Israel's leaders. For a number of years, their main strategy has been to make concessions in order to be liked or in hope that this will lead to a peace deal. They acted as if they had to make an agreement fast, even on worse terms. Thus, they gave away a lot of real estate and are offering bargain basement prices for more.
This didn't work for several reasons. First, Israel could afford to be patient, far more so than many outside pretend-experts argue. Second, when you signal that you are in a hurry and willing to lower the price fast, the buyer takes advantage of that to offer even less.
So that's the answer: Israeli leaders should treat the real estate of the land of Israel like they do their own personal real estate. That doesn't mean they should never give up any land at all, but only if the price and terms are real good. Until then, they should signal, I can afford to wait. Come back when you have a serious offer.
Like Barak, Prime Minister (for a few months before he is thrown out of office and labeled the worst prime minister in Israel's history) Ehud Olmert owns some nice pieces of property, purchased no doubt by the income from his hard work and clean living. Presumably they are not alone. So just set the price high, hang tough, dare to dream you will get an offer that meets your demands and everything will be all right.
Notice to potential buyers: If you don't keep up the mortgage payments, you lose your deposit and we repossess the property.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

Watch on The Middle-East: a project by The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) CenterAll material: (C) Copyright 2008 Watch on The Middle-East. All Rights Reserved.Email: info AT gloriacenter.org. You must credit if quoting and ask permission to reprint.

Reign in Islamic Crime Now!

Some "editors" on Wikipedia once referred to IsraelAmerica as a "hate Site" since we, or rather, I referred to some Arab Criminals and organizations in what they, the editors, felt was an unkind way.

I invite readers to visit The Religion Of Peace Website to view the number of atrocities committed by Muslims against young Muslim women throughout the Muslim world with alarming frequency.

Muslims cannot be allowed to continue to practice their barbaric ways.It has long been recognized that while freedom of religion is important, that freedom needs to be halted when it impinges upon innocent people's human rights.

The atavistic behaviour of Muslims is the reason why civilized nations occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another throwback to Ronald Reagan may be elected to the American presidency because of fears that Democrats are unaware of the threat and criminal behaviour of, NOT All, but a large and militant number of Muslims.

Obama has the brains and education and heart to be the first real leader in that office, but if he is unaware of Islamic criminality, and here I mean mainly, the disgusting brutality towards women and girls, I will oppose his candidacy.

I believe that Muslim persecution of females may well be the single most reprehensible violation of human rights on the planet today.

How many millions of women have been forced to cover themselves from head to foot, in sweltering desert heat, to protect their males property rights?

How many have been murdered for choosing freedom over subservience?

How many have been stoned to death and buried alive?

The religion of peace site also explains how Islam is making inroads and causing serious dysfunction in civilized countries as well.

I am not about hate or bigotry in any form.

I despise it.

But the vicious behaviour of Muslims must be stopped, forcibly, and immediately.

Read this story from the http://irishtimes.com/It is typical of the type of story we rarely hear or see in print.

Maybe its not as important as the John Edwards story, which covered Cable news, almost non-stop, for 24 hrs.

PAKISTAN:

THREE TEENAGE girls have been buried alive by their tribe in a remote part of Pakistan to punish them for attempting to choose their own husbands, in an "honour" killing case.

After news of the deaths emerged, male politicians from their province Balochistan defended the killings in parliament, claiming the practice was part of "our tribal custom".

The girls, thought to have been aged between 16 and 18, were kidnapped by a group of men from their Umrani tribe.

They were driven to a rural area and then injured by being shot.

Then, while still alive, they were dragged bleeding to a pit, where they were covered with earth and stones, according to the findings of Human Rights Watch, the international campaigning group.Officials, speaking off the record, confirmed the killings.

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Shame on Muslims, and those who remain silent about these crimes.
Reportedly, School teacher Tammy Gibbons, after serving fifteen days in prison in Sudan for not forbidding the children in her class from naming a teddy bear "Mohamed", was released.
Did you know that in Sudan a woman can be sentenced to being whipped in public for being a victim of rape?
There must be some comfort in that for rapists.
Both John McCain and his VP pick Gov. Palin favor passage of a law to force victims of rape to give birth to the rapist's child, even if doctors determine that the mother will die during child birth.
My guess is that they both believe that victims of rape were asking for it.
Or as McCain once joked, "If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it."