Hamas Boot Camp

Hamas Boot Camp Photo-essay courtesy of ForeignPolicy.com-- click on the image above.

News

Ever wonder how life in New York compares to say, Baghdad? Well, here’s a cool post from the New York Times’ Baghdad Bureau blog by an Iraqi reporter visiting New York. He compares the sights, sounds, and happening in New York to those in the Iraqi capital.
------

The New York Times also reports today that top level CIA officers traveled to Pakistan to discuss the Pakistani intelligence’s support of Islamic militants in the country’s tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan.

I personally have had a lot of concern about this for a while. Prior to 9/11 Pakistan’s intelligence service, known as the ISI, had a close relationship with the Taliban (and perhaps Al Qaeda). Although after September 2001 they officially turned against their former colleagues, many wonder whether the ISI is still supporting them clandestinely.

This raises a lot of hard questions. We give economic and military aid to Pakistan. Where does that money go? Is a portion indirectly funneled to the Islamic militants we are fighting in Afghanistan and other enemies?

Oil/ Saudi Arabia

Washington Post: Don’t expect oil prices to go down significantly EVER AGAIN.
Here’s why. – This is the first in what will be a series of articles… interesting and informative.
----
Also, I just finished Steve Coll’s The Bin Ladens, an excellent book that traces not only the history of the Bin Laden family from village poverty in Yemen to the multi-millionaires they are today, but also the history of 20th century Saudi Arabia.

"My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly in a jet. My son will ride a camel." Saudi Arabian Proverb

The Zohan

Well, I finally saw Don’t Mess with the Zohan, and I have to say that it was Adam Sandler’s best movie in years.

The Zohan can be summed up as: Moshe Dayan moves to New York to become a hairdresser. It was genuinely funny (although perhaps not everyone will understand all the hummus jokes), while at the same time maintaining a philosophical point.

The Zohan, played by Adam Sandler, is an Israeli commando who kicks ass and takes names; he can even catch a bullet between his thumb and forefinger. And yet, he’s fed up with the Arab-Israeli conflict. “When does it all end?” he’s constantly asking himself.

During a meeting to plan the apprehension of a terrorist the Zohan asks, “Why take him if we are going to release him in the end anyway?”

So he fakes his own death and moves to New York to pursue his dream: live in tranquility and make a living as a hairdresser.

High jinks follow but the film raises a key issue as Israel is preparing for a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. The Israelis will supposedly be swapping Samir Kuntar, a convicted terrorist who, among other things, killed a Jewish child by crushing her skull. –I’m sure he will be given a hero’s reception in Lebanon and the Arab world- perhaps that says something.
----

Best line: some WASPish business man refers to Arabs and Israelis as being “kaki” colored.

Some Interesting Quotes

“The measure of prudence and resolution is to know a friend from an enemy; the height of stupidity and weakness is not to know an enemy from a friend.

Do not surrender your enemy to oppression, nor oppress him yourself. In this respect treat enemy and friend alike. But be on your guard against him, and beware lest you befriend and advance him, for this is the act of the fool. He who befriends and advances friend and foe alike will only arouse distaste for his friendship and contempt for his enmity. He will earn the scorn of his enemy, and facilitate his hostile designs; he will lose his friend, who will join the ranks of his enemies.

The height of goodness is that you should neither oppress your enemy nor abandon him to oppression. To treat him as a friend is the mark of a fool whose end is near.

The height of evil is that you should oppress your friend. Even to estrange him is the act of a man with no sense, for whom misfortune is predestined.

Magnanimity is to befriend the enemy, but to spare them, and to remain on your guard against them.”
- Ibn Hazm of Crdova (994-1064) from The Book of Morals and Conduct
(which I found in Bernanrd Lewis’s excellent From Babel to Dragomans)
-----------
“Translations are like women: some are beautiful; some are faithful; few are both.”
-a “French wit” (also of From Babel to Dragomans)

A Week without News

Israel is diplomatically engaging Syria, and now, for the first time, Lebanon. Here’s an analysis from the Council of Foreign Relations.

Israel and Hamas have come to a six month hudna/truce. This may likely have little long term consequence as both sides will probably be prepping for the next round.

Israel conducts war games exercise with Iran and her nuclear facilities in mind. I take this seriously.

Hezbollah may be preparing terrorist attacks across the globe as a response to the February assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, the terrorist group’s operational chief. According to U.S. and Canadian intelligence agencies, certain Hezbollah terrorist leaders have left Lebanon (nobody knows why) and Hezbollah members were seen casing Ottawa’s Israeli Embassy and Synagogues in Toronto.

Opec and the other big energy players are convening an impromptu meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia this weekend to see what can be done about oil prices, currently over $130 a barrel.
-Don’t get your hopes up-
-------------------
This is only a a minuscule summary of what’s happening in the world. But imagine if there were no news?

Ireland: Treaty of Lisbon Treaty of Shisbon

Europeans conquered the world and were at the vanguard of everything in the modern era. Then came World War II. But why is the European Union- a rebuilt harmonious Europe of 500 million- not a real global power? Henry Kissinger summed it up best: “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?”

The Treaty of Lisbon was to remedy this question. But last week, when the Irish voted down a referendum on the Treaty, the world found out Europe indeed may never be a global power. Rather, it will continue for the foreseeable future as a bureaucratic economic federation. But “the United States of Europe”? Unlikely.

The Treaty of Lisbon (O Tratado de Lisboa, as they say in Portuguese- sorry but I had to throw that in) was essentially a rewritten European Constitution that had famously been rejected in 2005 referendums by the French and Dutch publics. It was to (slightly) reform the European Union, and would have given it a real President and a Minister of Foreign Policy. In other words: people to call.

The Treaty of Lisbon had to be approved by every country of the 27 member EU, so the Irish referendum basically killed the Treaty (This time Ireland was the only country to put the Treaty to a referendum-which they had to do by Irish law).

Why did the Irish vote the Treaty down? Why did the French and Dutch do much the same with the proposed constitution three years ago? That’s what everybody is debating.

As a whole the EU has done wonders for Europe: it helped and continues to help bring peace, stability, and prosperity to the region (witness the histories of Ireland, Spain, Greece; and the newly integrated Eastern European countries).

Yet treaties and the like to further strengthen European Union institutions have been constantly rejected because, in my opinion, there is no real European identity. Countries and regions within countries have strong identities, but the idea of “Europe” doesn’t inspire passions. A man from Barcelona would die for Catalunya, and most likely Spain; but not for Europe. And that’s what these referendums and votes have really been about.

-------------
Many commentators are saying the Irish are in essence hypocritical. EU membership has done wonders for the country. After the Irish joined in 1973 the emerald isle went from an impoverished place at the edge of the world known for getting their asses kicked by the English, emigration, potato famines, alcoholism, and leprechauns; to the “Celtic tiger,” an economic juggernaut with one of the best living standards in the world. People argue that because of this the Irish should be in favor of anything the Brussels leadership wants.

This criticism strikes me as patronizing. Yes, EU membership has been great for the Irish on the whole, but that does not mean they “owe” the EU anything and should back any proposal to strengthen the Union.

Just as Ireland (along with every other country to gain admittance) petitioned to be granted membership, the EU member countries in turn voted to grant them membership. Ireland is the equal of France, Germany, Italy, etc. If they prefer Europe in its current state that is their right and they should vote accordingly. If the Irish want to see changes, but not ones stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is their right to reject the treaty.
-------
Der Speigel has a pretty good special on the whole issue. Check it out (in English).

New Yorker Piece on Hugo Chavez

Latin America is the U.S.'s backyard (sorry, it's true). It's also geopolitically unimportant and is largely ignored.

But one figure from the region stands out: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Who is Hugo Chavez? What does he want? Answers and more questions in this long New Yorker piece.

Negotiation

Last week President Bush touched off a media firestorm which is sure to rear its head again this fall. He lambasted “appeasers” who “believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.''

Ironically Bush uttered these words in Israel, a country that is currently doing the very things he was condemning. The Israelis are indirectly negotiating with Syria (through Turkey) and Hamas (through Egypt). The Syrians are state-sponsors of terrorism; they give money, training and sanctuary to both Hamas and Hezbollah, and are strongly suspected of being behind the 2005 assassination of Lebanese President Rafik Hariri. Meanwhile, Hamas – who violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007- indiscriminately fire missiles onto southern Israel and are responsible for innumerable suicide bombings.

Let’s put aside for the moment issues like the correctness of criticizing from abroad (personally I don’t really care) or whether an outgoing President should inject himself into the new Presidential campaign (Bush’s comments were –at least in part- a shot at Obama after all). The President is speaking to a fundamental issue regarding our way forward in the Middle East and the fight against terrorism.

There are those who compare negotiating with terrorists and their state sponsors to Neville Chamberlain’s naïve 1938 dealings with Hitler. Hitler very clearly spelled out his intentions in Mein Kampf and letting the Germans take hold of the Sudetenland was futile. In no way did it stop the Nazis from carrying out the rest of their agenda.

Like Hitler Iranian President Ahmedinejad has made in very clear what he wants to do: acquire nukes and “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” Consequently, negotiating with Iran would be an act in futility as well.

The other side of the coin is that diplomacy and appeasment are not the same. We lose nothing by sitting down to talk with our enemies. We negotiated many times with the Soviet Union (even under Ronald Reagan) and under Bush's watch have done so with Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

I have to say that I’m more inclined to talk with no preconditions (with nation states, not terrorists nor any other non-State entities). However, deep down I harbor doubts that this indeed may be naïve, and I do think we should be very careful in what and how we negotiate. Here are two good op-eds from the New York Times on the issue: Yes, We Should ------ No, We Should Not
-------------
For an excellent read I highly recommend The Shia Revival, by Vali Nasr. It’s a real eye opening book that summarizes the split between Sunnis and Shia and their history of relations. But the crux of the book is about the sectarian conflict(s) unleashed by the War in Iraq, why they came about, and why they are so important, not just to Iraq, but to the entire region.

Is America Finished?

Here's an interesting review of Fareed Zakaria's new book, The Post-American World, from the New York Times Book Review. The review addresses why talk of America's demise may be premature.
-----------
Also, Zakaria has a new Foreign Affairs show premiering on CNN this June which I am looking forward to. He is a very intelligent analyst (and the editor of Newsweek International) and hopefully his show can raise the level of dialog like Charlie Rose. Here's a link to his website.

The News from Beirut

The state is the organization that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence
-German Sociologist Max Weber

The more things change, they more they stay the same. Lebanon again looks to be on the brink of civil war. In the past few days Hezbollah has seized control of entire districts of Beirut and has violently clashed with pro government forces. See the New York Times article here.

These current Beirut events should put to rest the claims that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization but are “noble patriots fighting Israeli imperialist aggression.” In reality this argument should have been given up after Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in the summer of 2000. Perhaps Hezbollah stuck around to combat the imperialism of the Syrians who formally occupied Lebanon through 2005? Oh, wait, that's right... they get funding from Syria.

What makes them a terrorist organization? Look no further than their 1994 bombing of AMIA, Buenos Aires’ Jewish Community Center, which killed upwards of 85 people (while treating the attack very seriously, Argentine authorities have yet to make any arrests after 14 years of investigation).

Now it should be evident to even Noam Chomsky and his acolytes who these people really are: An extra-national Shiite terrorist organization with links to Iran and Syria that contribute to the instability of Lebanon and the greater region.

Al Qaeda Complains

Don’t you just hate it when someone else gets credit for something you did? All that time, all that hard work you put in, only to see others bask in the glory. Anybody can understand the frustration.

Well, that’s how Ayman Zawahiri and the rest of Al Qaeda feel when people blame 9/11 on “the Jews.” -----See the BBC article here

Zawahiri, on a recently released audio recording on some Islamist website, claims it as an idea propagated by (shia) Iran to discredit the Sunnis.

Please, don’t forget to rub this in the face of any conspiracy theorist/anti-Semite you might meet in the future.

---------
As an addendum, the Onion beat me to it:

Me and my Brother

“Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins; me, my brother and my cousins against our nonrelatives; me, my brother, my cousins and friends against our enemies in the village; all of these and the whole village against the next village.”

-Arab Proverb

What I'm Reading

The history of the twentieth century was a clash of ideologies: Communism, Fascism, and Capitalism. Will the 21st century be an ideological/civilizational clash as well? Capitalism? Secularism? Zionism? Whabbism? Salafism? And God knows what else?

Over the past year I’ve been trying to read up on the Middle East. History, literature, journalism, you name it. I really want to know every detail of how the U.S. got itself into Iraq, how the Middle East came into it’s present state, and what the future holds.

I just finished The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright of The New Yorker. Published in 2006, the book traces the rise of Islamic fundamentalism from the mid-century writings of the intellectual Sayyid Qutb to 1970s Egyptian jails to Soviet occupied Afghanistan to Al Qaeda and 9/11 with a lot of stops in between. It’s a very informative read, it illuminates a lot of issues, and brings even more questions to the fore. Wright is a great story teller and really moves you through the book, no easy task given the subject matter.

Next up is Shah of Shahs by Ryszard Kapuscinski on the 1970s overthrow of the last Shah of Iran. In addition I’m planning to read Once Upon a Country by Sari Nuseibeh.

I am also itching to read War and Decision, Douglass Feith’s recently published memoir of his time in the Bush administration. Feith is the former Undersecretary of Defense -he worked for Rumsfeld- and has (in)famously been called “the stupidest fucking guy on the planet” by General Tommy Franks (ret). He was one of the driving forces behind the decision to invade Iraq. It’ll be interesting to read his side of events, and his self-criticism – I’m assuming it’ll be there anyway. (But I’ll wait until the book comes out in paperback).

Graham Greene Quote

How I should have concluded my prior entry on Iraq:

"God save us always...from the innocent and the good."
Graham Greene, The Quiet American

How Soccer explains Economic Globalization

Click here for a (shallow) take on the Globalization/Soccer theme.

Firstly- intellectuals, pundits, and Franklin Foer: STAY AWAY FROM SOCCER. Just because the sport is known as “the beautiful game” doesn’t mean you can use it to explain everything. Take the preceding op-ed. Yes, on the whole the Bosman Ruling (which the author doesn’t mention, but really is what he is talking about) has been good for players. But it has not been good for small clubs who use to survive by churning out young quality players and then selling them off for a tidy profit.

He also says that Egypt has positioned itself to take advantage of soccer globalization; his evidence is that they have won five African Nations Cups. What he doesn’t point out is that nobody gives a shit about that particular tournament. How many World Cups -the true barometer for national team progression- have Egypt qualified for? One, in 1990, where they were knocked out in the first round. Neither have they produced any world-class players.

He then contends that Egypt has a strong domestic league. I have no idea where he got this notion because the Egyptian league is not strong at all. How exactly has Egyptian soccer used globalizing forces to “enhance their domestic capacities”? If they have done this I would be very interested to find out how, but I just don't see any reason to argue that they have.

I have no problem with someone arguing that countries should prepare themselves to take advantage of globalization. But please do not use forced and illogical soccer analogies. It doesn’t make the argument more accessible. It only makes you look like a idiot.

Five Years in Iraq. Now what?

This week marked the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It’s really hard to believe it’s been that long.

Why did we invade? There was circumstantial evidence Saddam Hussein possessed WMD (we later found out the evidence was purely circumstantial), they were financing terrorism (indeed they were, but no more than any other Arab regime and certainly less so than our ally Saudi Arabia), and we thought we could turn Iraq into a flowering democracy (I’m speechless).

So, where are we now? Well, we didn’t have a thought out post invasion plan (again I am speechless) and the country basically fell apart. Tribal identities came to the fore, Iraqi Shiites (with links to Iran- how strongly is disputed) and Iraqi Sunnis began fighting each other. The Kurds up north look half a step away from declaring sovereignty (which would begin Iraq's official disintegration and potentially spark a fight with Turkey). And most people hate us.

Violence levels are certainly down with the surge (but to 2005 levels). The thing is, the surge was designed to keep violence levels down so that the Iraqis could gain breathing space to make political progress. Scant political progress has been made and not much looks likely in the future.

Militias formerly fighting against us are now our allies, but only because we pay them, not because they have any allegiance to the central Iraqi government. Sure, they are fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but many analysts contend they are really just consolidating as much ground as possible for a future civil war once US Forces leave.

So what do we do now? I have absolutely no idea.

Nevertheless, I do not think we should withdraw. By toppling Saddam Hussein we knocked the cover off of Pandora’s Box (I like Greek mythology). We’re now in charge of the situation, we broke it so we bought it. Withdrawing from Iraq would open another Pandora’s Box, potentially more devastating than the first one opened five years ago. There’s a very strong likelihood Iraq could turn into 1970’s/80’s Lebanon. There could be a regional war, there could even be a genocide, and God knows what else. I’m not arguing these things will happen, just that we have to entertain the possibility. Whatever does happen will be on us.

-----------------------------------------------

The best book I have read about the war is George Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate. Packer, a staff writer at the New Yorker, traces the Neoconservative movement from its intellectual conception, the pre-war debate over whether it was the right thing to do, and the actual war and insurgency through 2005. He’s a very gifted storyteller and presents a nuanced picture, something hard to come by.

-----------------------------------------------

I have one request for people who were against the 2003 invasion. Can you please stop saying, “we never should have invaded in the first place,” when discussing what we should do NOW? It’s hardly relevant. The fact is that we did invade.

This Land Belongs to Who?

The Imperial History of the Middle East


What will this map look like in 20 years time? Will the Islamists have their caliphate? (I doubt it) How many countries will there be between the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates river? Four? Five? Six? Or will the map be exactly the same?

It's anybody's guess.

here's a (long) article published in the Atlantic about the Middle East's future by Jeffrey Goldberg- one of my favorite journalists.

CUBA: Exit Fidel

Cuba is back in the news. Last weekend, after 48 years in office, Fidel Castro relinquished power, passing the reigns to his younger brother Raul (who’s 76). Although this official transfer of power is important, Raul has been de facto running the island since July 2006 when Fidel “temporarily” gave up control of the island because of some mysterious yet grave ailment (nobody really knows what he is suffering from- the CIA once again missed the mark when they predicted he would be dead by December 2006).

Despite the prognostications of some experts, nobody really knows what’s going to happen in Cuba. Raul has been called a pragmatist, but was also a hard line communist. Last weekend he called for unspecified degrees of reform, yet simultaneously put old guard hardliners in key positions. Life could continue the same. Or there could be some vague Chinese style democratic opening. Or there could be a true transition to democracy. It’s anybody’s guess. All the same, I would venture to say that nothing substantive will happen until after Fidel is officially dead.

I spent a month studying in Havana while I was in college. I could never say a month is sufficient time to really know a place, but I found Cubans to be very nice and friendly. I also found the Cuban regime to be very repressive (although I’ve met other Americans who studied on the island and found that “Cubans love it!”).

Case in point: in one of my first few days in Havana some friends and I met a local “fixer” named Mike. Fixers are fairly common in the third world. They are very enterprising street-smart people who, for a price, offer to show tourists and foreigners around. Good ones can get you some really nice deals and take you to some really cool places (alternatively, bad ones can get you kidnapped).

Mike was a rapper who styled himself the Cuban Tupac Shakur (he had “Thug Life” tattooed on his stomach) and was very disenchanted with life on the island. He spoke little English but had managed to learn “Fuck Fidel” and “Fuck Socialism.” He was constantly going on about how life was so much better before the collapse of the USSR (which more or less bank rolled Cuba) and how he wanted to move to the United States. At one point we were walking down the street and he was spouting forth some critique of the regime, people around us began to glance at him worriedly (or maybe fearfully), telling him to take it easy. His response was that he didn’t give a shit anymore.

At one point he asked us how life was in the States. We told him that life wasn’t as easy back home as many people thought, especially if you don’t have an education. “But if you work hard, there’s a chance you could succeed?" he then asked. "Here there’s no chance. Fidel decides.”

It's Classified

Nobody knows what happened for sure, all we are really certain of is that on September 6, 2007 Israeli Air Force planes entered Syrian airspace. They might or might not have bombed a building in Eastern Syria. The building might or might not have been a nuclear reactor. The nuclear reactor might or might not have been a joint project with North Korea.

Adding to the mystery, the Israelis were mum and Syria did not retaliate at all.

The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh investigates.