Analysis: Syria's Goose Lays a Golden Egg

By Jonathan Spyer*

June 28, 2009

Washington's decision to return its ambassador to Syria is the latest stage in the present administration's policy of engagement with Damascus. It relates most importantly to the US desire to secure Syrian cooperation in the build-up to the departure of American combat troops from urban areas in Iraq.

The decision is related to the broader American ambition of drawing Damascus away from Iran. Hopes for a revival of talks between Israel and Syria, and the desire to enlist Syria in the ongoing effort to bring about a rapprochement between the Palestinian Fatah movement and the Damascus-domiciled Hamas may also have played a role.

Regarding Iraq, the US is aware that Sunni insurgents will have an interest in ratcheting up the level of violence as the US prepares to draw down its combat forces - to give the impression that it is they who are bringing about the American redeployment. Syria has served as a key ally of the Sunni insurgency since its beginnings. For a period, the route between Damascus airport and the Syrian-Iraqi border was a favorite one for Sunni jihadis seeking to enter Iraq to take part in the insurgency.

In recent months, US officials have reported an improvement in Syrian control on the border, and a reduction in the number of insurgents crossing over. In the familiar Syrian fashion, Damascus's promotion of violence against Americans, and its subsequent willingness to partially reduce this promotion, is used as a tool to reap diplomatic rewards.

Regarding the Palestinian angle: ongoing Palestinian unity talks in Cairo have so far proved fruitless. Despite its focus on a revived Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the administration is aware that for as long as an openly rejectionist Hamas entity continues to rule over 40 percent of the Palestinian population, hopes for a meaningful negotiating process belong largely to the realm of fantasy.

There is therefore a real determination, shared by Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, to make a success of the unity effort. Hamas's leadership is based in Damascus, so efforts to bring Syria closer to Washington may also be intended to enlist Syrian support in pressuring Hamas towards greater flexibility.

The revival of Israeli-Syrian talks is likely to feature on the administration's agenda at some stage in the coming period. The presence of a US representative in Damascus would facilitate US mediation.

The biggest prize, however - a Syrian strategic reorientation away from alliance with Iran - is likely to continue to prove elusive.
An angry, more openly militant Iranian regime is likely to emerge in the coming weeks from the current unrest. It will be hated by a large section of its people. But this will not harm either its desire or its ability to support radical forces in the region.

For the Syrians, the maintenance of alliances with various Islamist and radical regional elements forms a key element of national strategy. It is one which continues to pay dividends. The past months have shown that the Syrians may repair relations with the West at little cost to themselves, while maintaining this stance.

One does not, as the saying goes, kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Syrian "goose" combines alliance with Iran and support for regional instability with occasional gestures of cooperation to the West. It has just delivered the "golden egg" of a new US ambassador in Damascus in return for no concessions on issues of core importance to the Assad regime.

This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post on the 28/6/2009.

---

* Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

A CNN Editor Discovers Islamism

By Barry Rubin*

June 29, 2009

http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/06/cnn-editor.html

Analysis of Middle East events, it often seems, is the worst-managed of all intellectual chores concerning the contemporary world. There are ideological and political barriers that get in the way of accuracy (not to mention fairness); ignorance plays a role, as does fear. But often underlying everything is the fact that when the Middle East knocks at the door, common sense jumps out the back window.

Consider a blog posting entitled, “CNN journalist asks: `Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?’" I don’t write this to attack the author—whose intentions are clearly good ones--but merely to ask how people examine the regional issues. What makes this interesting is that the author is Octavia Nasr, Middle East Affairs editor for CNN, in other words a person who has a great deal to do with what appears on that channel and how it’s presented.

Nasr’s basic argument is that the Iranian regime’s repression of anti-government demonstrators is contrary to Islam. One should begin by noting that in the fictional world wherein we live today, a huge amount of attention is paid to the idea that Islam is treated worse (“Islamophobia”) than other religions or doctrines in terms of its intellectual and analytical examination. In fact, it is treated far better almost all of the time. It should be treated the same.

Nasr begins by quoting an Iranian cleric at a Friday prayer sermon who calls on supporters to “Annihilate the rioters” who “should be punished mercilessly.” The cleric `claims they are acting contrary to the decisions of Iran’s supreme guide who is acting according to God’s design in this world. Nasr wants to argue that this behavior is contrary to Islam.

Ironically, Nasr calls him a “fundamentalist,” a word that simultaneously could get her labeled an Islamophobe under other circumstances and reinforces the cleric’s own argument. After all, if he is getting back to Islam’s “fundamentals” that means he is returning to the proper roots of the religion, right? So the choice of words implies that he is correct. That’s why I never use that word and prefer Islamist, someone who uses their interpretation of Islam as a political doctrine.

“Some would say,” she continues, “those words couldn’t be more un-Islamic.” True. But others would say—including the government of Iran—that they couldn’t be more Islamic. This is what the great battle in the Middle East is about: which interpretation of Islam will prevail.

Arguing among non-Muslims which one is more “correct” is a wasted effort. There is no right answer. How Christians interpret their religion with utter certitude in 2009 is not the same as it was in 1009. Islam is neither a religion of peace nor the opposite. It is a body of holy writings, commentaries, practices, and history—just like other religions—which must be examined dispassionately as to how it functions in the world, among different groups, and in different places.

Nasr writes: “The entire religion is based on surrendering all aspect of oneself to `god.' (sic)....When moderate Muslims hear what this Mullah has called for, they wonder which brand of Islam he is advocating.”
Really? They wonder? The implication here is that Islam has never been used as a tool of repression in history; that it is astonishing someone might insist that he has the proper answer and everyone else must bow to that or suffer.

Christianity is arguably a religion of love—consider the “Sermon on the Mount,” yet how has it been used historically? If someone dares, in many nominally Christian circles, say something positive about Christianity, how many seconds will it be before someone brings up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition?

Nasr points out that the most basic Muslim creed refers to God as “most merciful, most compassionate.” So where, she asks, is the mercy in this cleric’s statement?

Simple and it should quickly come to mind for anyone but the simple-minded. God also has commandments and in Islam it is clearly stated that believers should forbid what the deity doesn’t want and promote what the deity does want. And that’s precisely what this cleric says—and believes—he’s doing.

Nasr then goes on to support the opposition movement, extolling their courage and condemning the attempts to block reporting of what’s happening in Iran. This is all fine, leaving aside the question of whether an editor at a news channel should personally and openly take sides.

Frankly, I find this disturbing even if I think the cause is a good one. Journalists are supposed to be as neutral as possible. If they are reporting on something evil, they don’t have to take a personal stance on it. Just report the facts and assuming you’re right the reader or viewer will draw the appropriate conclusion. Alas, this kind of thinking about journalism is as dead as the dodo or the steam locomotive.

The problem, of course, is that once journalists decide to support one cause you might agree is a good one, they then go off backing a dozen others which don’t fit into that category. It sounds good that the poor, the “victimized,” and the “underdog” should be supported. But before you can say “suicide bomber” or “populist dictatorship,” that definition has come to encompass some dreadful things.

Yet what’s really bizarre about Nasr’s approach is that she speaks as if this cleric's statement is something new, that suddenly a single call for using violence in the name of Islam is some shocking innovation.

But the Islamist regime in Iran has been in power for 30 years, doing precisely what it is doing today. Islamism—which rather explicitly bases itself on a vision of Islam—has been in business for even longer. The Iranian regime has executed hundreds of people over the years, tortured many more by defining their activities as being against proper Islam.

Meanwhile, thousands of terrorist attacks have been staged, tens of thousands of innocent civilians murdered in the name of Islam. The Saudi religious police go about their business; the Taliban terrorized Afghanistan. Writers are intimidated or killed, women who step out of line are murdered, and genocide against the Jews is advocated.

And if we go back to past centuries we can find no shortage of occasions when Islam has been the basis of repression, aggressive warfare, and other such things.

So why suddenly is a cleric calling for putting down an opposition to a stolen election the beginning of a discovery on these matters?

And how can a non-Muslim confidentally state that the actions of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, including top clerics who have spent their life studying Islam are just flatly wrong because people who aren't Muslims think so?

Of course, she could say that there are two camps in Islam and she prefers the moderate one wins. She can cite many Muslims who do have a different interpretation of their religion (and are sometimes repressed or even murdered for having expressed it). But to say that a high proportion of actually living, breathing Muslims who believe in Islamism or the most common interpretations of Sharia law and jihad have just arrived from another planet with no connection to anything in their own religion isn't going to work.

Equally of course, it is better that such a discovery about what's going on in the world is being made. But let’s face it. The reason for the shock now is that the people being so repressed:

--Look like us in terms of their clothing and mannerisms because they are urban, middle class, and visibly Westernized in mannerisms and clothing.

--Are on television and computer.

--Are engaging in activities (peaceful mass demonstrations) on behalf of a cause (fair elections) which we can imagine ourselves doing and supporting.

The author, who is from a strongly Christian background in Lebanon, must be most familiar with the operations of Hizballah and the civil war there. Is Nasr, the Middle East editor at CNN, telling us that she's shocked to see radical Islamists preaching an intolerant version of Islam and implementing it? And is she equally telling us that very few Muslims believe this kind of thing?

Consider one detail of her own background. Nasr has a special interest in theatre, including having acted herself on the stage. If she were a Muslim woman, acting in a play might have been sufficient to inspire her family to murder her (in an urban middle class Beirut Sunni family, less likely of course but the point still applies) or certainly she would have been intimidated enough not to try. Could she possibly be unaware of this fact?

What we should be talking about is not the purity of Islam but the battle within Islam and the aggressive efforts of radical Islamists against others. Islam is being used—you can say abused if you want--in Iran and by other groups whose activities affect millions of people, from stoning in Afghanistan or Somalia, to decapitations in Thailand, to suicide bombings even in Spain, Britain, and on the New York skyline.

The article is entitled, "'Punished mercilessly'–Is this Islam?" In your or my preferred interpretation, perhaps not. But of course this is nothing new and also something extraordinarily important. One might better use the title: “`Punished mercilessly’—This is Islamism” or an interpretation of Islam which we don't like but one that is quite well-grounded on accepted and traditional Muslim history and sources.

If Nasr were a mere academic, it would not be so surprising she would say such things. But it is frightening to see a top journalist show such a naïve view of the world and its modern history, as well as apparent incomprehension of the workings of ideology, power, and politics.

---

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org

Tennis Is Easy To Learn, How and Why You Should Play

I cannot count the number of people who have told me over the years, “I tried to play tennis, but I just wasn't any good at it.”

I politely disagree with them.

Everyone can play tennis.

However, you do have to learn the BASICS, which are not complicated, but are necessary.

The basics of tennis are counter intuitive, which is why people who don't have someone to guide them often fail at tennis after flailing away for months, sometimes.

I tried tennis when I was 12, I found a wall and hit for hours, and days, and weeks.

I just didn't seem to get any better, so I gave up.

Years later I was a Firefighter, and a rookie started recruit training with the Department who had been a professional player .

This time, before I played, I went to the library and checked out a book by Vic Braden, an instructional manual.

I went out with the rookie, Jeff Bates.

I asked him for some tips.

He said, “I'll give you two tips. Find a wall to practice against. The second tip, just get the ball back.

That's the most important tip,

Just get it back.”

The first time we played, was for me, embarrassing, although Jeff was non-committal.

By the third time, with the aid of Vic Braden's book, Jeff said, “I am impressed, Michael. I can tell you've been practicing. You have really improved. I want you to have this.”

He gave me his one of his rackets, a Head, ash and graphite racket.

I played with it for years, it became one of my most prized objects.

And I learned about just one of the benefits of tennis.

A bond is formed between players.

I began finding other Firefighters who played, and challenged them to matches.

I lost quite a few matches, but I was getting a feel for the game.

Finally, after many months, I felt that I was, “in the zone”.

I was battling a younger player, the brother and hitting partner of a local High School champion.

Richard Felix.

It's hard to explain the exhilaration of winding up, coiling your body, and hitting a perfect shot with everything you have.

The closest experience I can relate to it is some of the boxing matches I had when I was younger.

The same adrenalin rush, the same feeling of being in control, the same drama.

And it is a feeling that everyone can experience.

It is like a religion, when you come to know it.

It really is.

I proselytize Tennis.

Not because I get paid for it, but because everyone can, and should know the feeling of being an athlete.

I will get more into the spiritual benefits of tennis in a later article, but such benefits do go hand in hand with tennis.

There is a reason that billionaires, who can play any sport, and pursue any activity, choose, and stay with this incredible game.

Again, I will address that remarkable issue in a forthcoming article.

So for now, I would like to give an introductory lesson

I have taught quite a few players, including my children, and I have taught underprivileged children how to play.

I believe anyone that can walk and run can play tennis well.

They just have to learn the basics.

And practice.

We all know how to get to Carnegie Hall, yes?

I have proven that I can teach the basics to anyone, and have them playing, and hitting comfortably, in an hour.

I usually hold the racket with my palm on the flat side, put the racket on the side, and “shake hands with it” is how I have heard it described.

I do want to note that lately I have been trying to hit forehands with my palm further onto the bottom of the racket, that is, with the knuckles on the bottom of the racket.

This seems to almost force you to impart more topspin to shots.

Experiment with your grip.

When you hit a backhand, you rotate the racket forward, but that comes later, we are working on a forehand today.

When you hit the ball the racket should be held so that the strings are facing  the net.

If the shot comes towards you low, bend your knees, don't turn the racket face up or down.

The strings should be in the direction you want the ball to go.

Hit the ball slightly in front of your body,

at waist level, bend your knees to hit low shots at waist level, back up or or stretch or jump if the shot is high.

Watch the flight of the ball and try to position yourself so that you can hit it at waist level, just in front of your body.

Think of a “C”, bring the racket back in a loop, a “C”, the racket straightens out just as you hit the ball and gives it topspin.

Think of it as brushing up the back of the ball , this is not what you do, you actually hit through the ball, but the concept of brushing up the back of the ball sometimes helps visualize the desired result, I.e., topspin.

Topspin is important because it lets you hit the ball hard, and it still lands inside the court because the spin brings it down.

I think tennis instruction books are an extremely valuable tool.

By far the most helpful books I have seen are the Vic Braden books, and the one by Ivan Lendl, with Braden way ahead.

However, what I learned from Ivan Lendl was, he recommended hitting thousands of balls against a wall.

I have found this helpful as well.

I was injured in a bicycle accident a few years back and couldn't play tennis.

But I had a large driveway, and a garage. When I was recovered enough from the accident, (a fractured tib fib and humerus,) I played against the wall of the garage for three months.

My comeback match was with a neighbor who played weekly at a tennis club.

I beat him in three straight matches, and he was a decent player, so I am definitely an advocate of playing the wall.

Remember, the wall always returns your shots.

The young Pete Sampras spent hours hitting balls against the wall.

What I want you to remember from this lesson, however, is hit the ball waist high and with the racket perpendicular to the net, slightly in front of your body.

The ball will go in the direction of your hand at the moment you strike it.

I hope y'all come back.

If you have comments or criticism, click “Comments”, and I will answer if I can.

Iranian Dissident: Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters - Help Us!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132073

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

(IsraelNN.com) Iranian anti-regime activists are hoping for an Israeli technological hand to help them fight the Islamic Republic. As of now, hundreds of protesters have been killed by the regime, which is evidently using Arabic-speaking armed thugs from Hizbullah to help perpetrate the violence.

"Dear Israeli Brothers and Sisters," writes Iranian dissident Arash Irandoost, "Iran needs your help more than ever now. And we will be eternally grateful. Please help opposition television and radio stations which are blocked and being jammed by the Islamic Republic (Nokia and Siemens) resume broadcast to Iran. There is a total media blackout and Iranians inside Iran for the most part are not aware of their brave brothers and sisters fighting and losing their lives daily. And the unjust treatment and brutal massacre of the brave Iranians in the hands of the mullah's paid terrorist Hamas and Hizbullah gangs are not seen by the majority of the Iranians. Please help in any way you can to allow these stations resume broadcasting to Iran.

"And, please remember that we will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need," Irandoost concludes, signing his blogged call for help "Your Iranian Brothers and Sisters!"

In an interview with Israel National News, Iranian expatriate pro-democracy activist Amil Imani said that Irandoost's message represents the sentiments of much of the youth in the streets in Iran. They have a strong belief in the technological know-how of the Israelis to overcome the Iranian regime's attempts to block communications.

"This is going to be the most massive, impressive revolution of the 21st century," Imani said, "and we're seeing it live." However, he added, it is now too dependent on Internet communications, so the protesters are very much in need of outside assistance to fight the technological and information war.

More generally, Imani said, the Iranian people are lionizing any leader of any nation who comes out strongly against the Islamic Republic at this time.

According to Imani, at least 500 people have been killed by Iranian government forces, with another 5,000 injured. But the hospitals are no longer safe, he added, as the gunmen from the basiji militia enter the emergency wards looking for
We will remember, as you have remembered Cyrus the Great's treatment of you in your time of need.
wounded protesters. Therefore, Imani said, sympathetic doctors have taken to treating the wounded wherever they can, including in private homes.

Even outside Iran, thousands of protesters are out in the streets every day, especially in the United States. Imani said he thinks the phenomenon represents unprecedented unity in the Iranian expatriate community.

As for the basijis themselves, Imani reported, many of them are Lebanese and Palestinian Authority Arabs hired by the regime to do its bidding. Iranians reportedly captured seven basijiswho spoke no Persian, only Arabic. According to Imani, 10,000 more Arab hired guns arrived in Tehran to serve the mullah-led regime.

But they are not the only ones thinking about guns at this point. Some Iranian protesters, Imani reported, have taken to threatening their oppressors, "God help you when we get weapons!"

Even outside Iran, thousands of protesters are out in the streets every day, especially in the United States. Imani said he thinks the phenomenon represents unprecedented unity in the Iranian community, within Iran and abroad.

"There is no turning back," Imani concluded.