Hamas Boot Camp

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

The Good Neigbor Policy: Arab Style

You come from a dirt poor country ravaged by years of war and terror. You have little remaining infrastructure and a tenuous supply of water. Your country needs all the help it can get. But the one thing you do have is oil, the blessing and the curse. Your country, Iraq, sits on the world’s third largest oil reserves.

With the price of oil being well over $100 a Barrel for the foreseeable future now is the time for you to cash in, right? So what does Iraq do? They cut a deal to sell neighboring Jordan discounted oil at $22 a Barrel!!!!!

Can someone explain this to me? What sense does that make? What is Jordan giving them in return?

More News from the Middle East

The Forever War, a much anticipated book by New York Times correspondent Dexter Filkins, is scheduled to hit shelves this September.

Filkins is one of the best American journalists around. Since 2001 he has reported the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, prior to working for the Times he was the LA Times’ New Delhi Bureau Chief. The Forever War reportedly is a treatment of the America’s military involvement in the Middle East after 9/11.

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

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?

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.

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.

The Death of Ari Ben Canaan

The real life Ari Ben Canaan dies at home in Tel Aviv.

-------------
*Israel's turning 60, I'll post about that, and other developments, soon.

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

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.

Arab Literary Prize

While the Muslims were erecting streetlights in Córdoba bathing was a once in a lifetime experience for the barbarians living in present day England. Yes, it’s true. The Arabs were once renowned for their culture and sophistication.

Although this might sound politically incorrect, nowadays when one sees the word “Arab,” literature isn’t the first thing that springs to mind. Sure, they produced The Arabian Nights (which is at the top of my list of books to read), but that was well over a millennia ago. Since then roughly 10,000 books have been translated into Arabic- the amount of books Spain translates in a year.

But this wayward story might soon change course with this year’s inaugural International Prize for Arabic Fiction. The prize is managed from Abu Dhabi (in the Untited Arab Emirates) with some sort of link to the Booker Prize Foundation, a prestigious British literary award.


This year’s prize- the very first- was won by Egyptian author Baha Taher for his book Sunset Oasis. Taher was awarded $10,000 (along with the five other finalists), and Sunset Oasis, along with every other book to win the prize, will be translated into English.

This bodes well for the future. I am a big fan of literature, not because I like to over-analyze everything, but because I think literature can (potentially) shed light on the human predicament and questions we ask- both individually and as a society. By reading another society’s literature we can begin to grasp who they are.

I’m looking forward to reading Taher, along with other authors to win the prize, in order to expand my knowledge of the Middle East- something I (probably we) know next to nothing about.

When Moshe Dayan became a Hairdresser and Indiana Jones

A lot's been going on in Hollywood lately. The writers' strike, the slow motion ten car pile up that is Britney Spears, I could go on. But the twos most important developments.... Below are two summer previews.
------------------
Zohan was a decorated war hero. Zohan was a Mossad secret agent. Zohan wants to move to the States and become a hairdresser. (What type of name is Zohan? Doesn't really sound Hebrew to me)



What the Fuck? This new Adam Sandler movie’s coming to a theater near you this summer.
--------------

Indiana Jones (no intro here, pretty self explanatory)

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.

al Mutanabi Quote

"When a lion shows its teeth, do not assume he's smiling at you."
-al Mutanabi (medieval Arab Poet)

Annapolis

I’ve been meaning to post this for a while now, but the Annapolis Conference/
Meeting/whatever-you want-to-call-it finally happened yesterday. Both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) pledged to negotiate an agreement to end the Israel-Palestinian conflict by the end of 2008. They even shook hands.

I’m skeptical. First of all, weak leaders cannot make concessions and stay in power, only strong leaders have the political capital to do so. Neither Olmert nor Abbas are strong leaders. Abbas has lost control of Gaza to Hamas, and only has tenuous control of the West Bank. (As a side note, Abbas is universally hailed as a moderate but is also a Holocaust denier. Until recently I thought that “Moderate” and “Holocaust denier” were mutually exclusive, I guess not.)

Meanwhile, Olmert’s popularity sank after the 2006 War in Lebanon (which most see as botched), he’s under investigation in a number of corruption probes, and is so unpopular he can only envy Bush’s 28% approval rating. Neither leader can afford to make unpopular decisions and hold on to power, but most importantly, the decisions would not be seen as legitimate.

Let’s take a look at some of the issues from the Israeli side.

Israeli Settlements in the West Bank. The settlements and outposts (illegal settlements) give Israel a terrible image abroad and inflame Palestinians. Nevertheless, the settlers have huge lobbying power in the Israeli government (akin to the NRA’s power). Olmert should at the very least suspend the building of all new settlements. But if he were to do just that his parliamentary coalition would fall apart.

Then there's the Palestinian Right of Return. This is a HUGE stumbling block, much more so than most people think. About 800,000 Palestinians were displaced after the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. There are presently over 3 million descendants of these refugees (mostly living in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon) and they are a cause-celebré among the European Left. What is often times forgotten is that these people were displaced during a war their leaders in fact initiated. But forgetting that for the moment, the problem is that the Palestinians are demanding the descendants of these 800,000 refugees have the “Right of Return” into Israel.

This is unfeasible for Israel and furthermore is contradictory to the Two State Solution. The Two State solution provides for a Jewish-Israeli state, and a Palestinian-Arab state. Each side would give up whatever claim it believes it may have to the other’s land. So, each side would have Right of Return to their own land; no Palestinian would have Right of Return to Israel because they’ve given up claim to it.

Next up is “the Wall/Security Barrier,” what Jimmy Carter and others see as a symbol of “Apartheid.” I disagree. The security barrier was actually an idea of the Israeli Left and the Israelis began constructing it in 2002 as a response to the second Intifada. Now, one could certainly argue that it should be constructed along the Green Line and not cut deep into Palestinian territory, but without a doubt the barrier saves lives. It prevents Palestinian terrorists from infiltrating Israel and blowing themselves up in buses and pizzerias, which in turn prevents the Israeli military from invading the West Bank to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure - as happened in 2002 with a lot of collateral damage.

Anyway, you can agree or disagree but you know where I stand. I’ll add more about the whole thing later, if you’re really interested in the conflict I encourage you to read articles from Bitter Lemons. This website presents the thoughts and analyses of journalists, intellectuals, policy figures, and others from both sides of the conflict. It’s a forum for discussion and ideas, rather than negotiation.