Summary: We see the beginnings of terrorist Islamist groups in Egypt again, with a government unable or unwilling to stop them. The violence will grow. At the same time, this development teaches us about the nature of Islam and Islamism, disproving both sides in the dominant Western debate.
By Barry Rubin
As I've predicted since February, a major consequence of the Egyptian revolution and the rise of radical Islamism there will be a return to the terrorism of the 1990s which destroyed the tourism industry; targeted Christians; murdered moderates and secularists; and killed government officials and bystanders.
Now a group has attacked two police stations in el-Arish. They:
"`Stormed in by the hundreds mounted on pickup trucks and motorcycles waving black flags, a symbol of Jihad,'" said local resident Mohamed Mahmoud. `The militants were heavily armed with machine guns, hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades.'"
Where are these weapons going to be coming from? Arms' smugglers allowed to operate without the restrictions of the old regime; politically sympathetic or well-bribed soldiers turning over equipment.
But, of course, CNN misses the point. Those responsible, it reports, are, "Takfir-wal Higra, a group sympathetic to al Qaeda's goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate." Actually, that group originated in Egypt long before Usama bin-Ladin began his political activity. And in Egypt, terrorist Islamists come out of the Muslim Brotherhood, demanding faster and more extreme tactics. We will be seeing a lot of such people in the coming months and years.
Read it all
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Norway As Example: It's Forbidden to Discuss How Political Apologists for Terror-Using Groups Unintentionally Increase Terrorism
Note: This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post in response to recent events. I hope this is the last time I address the issue. If you are going to forward or post a copy please use this one as it has a number of small improvements and is not cut.
It is available in Norwegian at http://wp.me/p1mneq-6a9 Scroll down past the English version. I have not been able to check this translation personally.
Before I begin I want to make five points absolutely clear:
1. I was one of the first people in the world to write condemning the action in Norway as terrorism and as committed by a right-winger. Therefore--and based on my career of 35 years including 30 years working on counterterrorism--it should be clear that I would never endorse the murder of dozens of people. The irony is that a plea to fight terrorism by not granting it rewards was distorted into a pro-terrorist position!
2. A large portion of the Norwegian mass media has repeatedly stated that I endorsed the killings and called the kids at the camp terrorists. This is a lie. False quotes were attributed to my article. To my best knowledge, nobody in Norway tried to establish the truth or report fairly.
3. No Norwegian media--indeed no reporter from anywhere in the world--made any attempt to interview me on this issue and find out what I thought and what I wrote. Imagine, this is the biggest story in Norway and nobody contacted me at all.
4. The Jerusalem Post never discussed this issue with me nor contacted me to discuss the issue and hear my position. I have written for this newspaper for about 30 years without a single controversy arising before.
5. We have arrived at the strange situation in which the Norwegian media and apparently the Norwegian government considers me to be "pro-terrorist" but does not consider Hamas (and a number of other groups one could name) to be "pro-terrorist."
What explains this kind of thing--deliberate lies, deceitful reporting, disinterest in truth, disinterest in fairness? Answer: The conversion of the public debate and media into propaganda exercises in which (ironically, McCarthyist) witchhunts are conducted and those entrusted with the sacred pursuit of truth and accuracy use their positions to spread lies, incitement, and indoctrination.
This has been going on now for some years but there's nothing like experiencing something first-hand to comprehend it well. I now hope to get back to work as an analyst of international affairs and especially of the Middle East.
It Is Forbidden to Discuss How Political Enablers of Terrorist Groups Unintentionally Encourage Terrorism Without Being Labelled A Terrorist
By Barry Rubin
“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasir Arafat and said: `Iif you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the state of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” --President Shimon Peres, May 2011
We want Palestine in its entirety—so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst…. We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well." -- Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiasm for helping Hamas. .
Ironically, the reaction to my article, “The Oslo Syndrome,” proved its thesis, the same point as the one President Shimon Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.
The Norwegian government and media establishment wants no honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there.
How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing?
The blog “Israel Matzav” sums up my position very well:
“Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?”
And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate--as the ambassador portrayed his country’s view--that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state eleven years ago) but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology--right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic--but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.
I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help—not hurt—his cause? Because like terrorists around the world he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.
Second, nobody else apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.
The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hizballah by name. Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”
Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group then cabinet ministers can’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.
Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: it wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims. But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.
Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn't even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.
Former Prime Minister Kare Willoch criticized President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish.” Nor the author Jostein Gaarder who wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten entitled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hizballah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.” Apology?
In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas - no, what am I saying! You don't celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus." Apology? Last year the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precision-guided missiles against selected Israeli targets.” Apology?
But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying--as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway—is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group like Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.
You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away. She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against sharia law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and walking down the street. Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage?
If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to have lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures will be condemned and vilified they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.
The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories—even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.
We are now approaching the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies. There are always those—including in Norway—who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.
My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: the attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thinks al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.
The Norwegian government and left-wing media wants there to be two sectors in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, as compared with those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.
What I wrote in the “Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.
Here are some good responses to the situation:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/08/norways-deputy-foreign-minister-appeals.html
A collection of antisemitic cartoons in the Norwegian media:
http://www.israelwhat.com/anti-semtic-cartoons-in-the-mainstream-media/
Alan Dershowitz article (free registration required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222561887244764.html
A long analysis of Norway’s actions
http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-song-of-norway-its-antisemitic.html
Peres and Store quotes: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/05/06/peres-criticizes-norway-on-hamas/
Zahhar quote, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/3051.htm
Haniya quote http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2910.htm
A fascinating story about a Norwegian-Arab politician from Syria who has renounced her former antisemitism and become a critic of Norway's policy from that perspective.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/more-tolerance-norway
It is available in Norwegian at http://wp.me/p1mneq-6a9 Scroll down past the English version. I have not been able to check this translation personally.
Before I begin I want to make five points absolutely clear:
1. I was one of the first people in the world to write condemning the action in Norway as terrorism and as committed by a right-winger. Therefore--and based on my career of 35 years including 30 years working on counterterrorism--it should be clear that I would never endorse the murder of dozens of people. The irony is that a plea to fight terrorism by not granting it rewards was distorted into a pro-terrorist position!
2. A large portion of the Norwegian mass media has repeatedly stated that I endorsed the killings and called the kids at the camp terrorists. This is a lie. False quotes were attributed to my article. To my best knowledge, nobody in Norway tried to establish the truth or report fairly.
3. No Norwegian media--indeed no reporter from anywhere in the world--made any attempt to interview me on this issue and find out what I thought and what I wrote. Imagine, this is the biggest story in Norway and nobody contacted me at all.
4. The Jerusalem Post never discussed this issue with me nor contacted me to discuss the issue and hear my position. I have written for this newspaper for about 30 years without a single controversy arising before.
5. We have arrived at the strange situation in which the Norwegian media and apparently the Norwegian government considers me to be "pro-terrorist" but does not consider Hamas (and a number of other groups one could name) to be "pro-terrorist."
What explains this kind of thing--deliberate lies, deceitful reporting, disinterest in truth, disinterest in fairness? Answer: The conversion of the public debate and media into propaganda exercises in which (ironically, McCarthyist) witchhunts are conducted and those entrusted with the sacred pursuit of truth and accuracy use their positions to spread lies, incitement, and indoctrination.
This has been going on now for some years but there's nothing like experiencing something first-hand to comprehend it well. I now hope to get back to work as an analyst of international affairs and especially of the Middle East.
Foreign Minister Store with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya: Smiles at Hamas, Frown at Israel. Deny Being an Enabler of Terrorism. Norwegian media accuses me--but not Hamas--of supporting terrorism. Haniya on US. assassination of Usama bin Ladin, “Of course we condemn the…killing of a Muslim jihad fighter….We pray for Allah to cover him with His mercy, next to the prophets, the righteous, and the martyrs."
A Case Study from Norway:
It Is Forbidden to Discuss How Political Enablers of Terrorist Groups Unintentionally Encourage Terrorism Without Being Labelled A Terrorist
By Barry Rubin
“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasir Arafat and said: `Iif you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the state of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” --President Shimon Peres, May 2011
We want Palestine in its entirety—so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst…. We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well." -- Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiasm for helping Hamas. .
Ironically, the reaction to my article, “The Oslo Syndrome,” proved its thesis, the same point as the one President Shimon Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.
The Norwegian government and media establishment wants no honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there.
How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing?
The blog “Israel Matzav” sums up my position very well:
“Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?”
And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate--as the ambassador portrayed his country’s view--that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state eleven years ago) but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology--right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic--but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.
I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help—not hurt—his cause? Because like terrorists around the world he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.
Second, nobody else apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.
The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hizballah by name. Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”
Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group then cabinet ministers can’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.
Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: it wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims. But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.
Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn't even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.
Former Prime Minister Kare Willoch criticized President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish.” Nor the author Jostein Gaarder who wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten entitled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hizballah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.” Apology?
In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas - no, what am I saying! You don't celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus." Apology? Last year the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precision-guided missiles against selected Israeli targets.” Apology?
But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying--as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway—is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group like Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.
You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away. She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against sharia law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and walking down the street. Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage?
If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to have lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures will be condemned and vilified they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.
The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories—even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.
We are now approaching the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies. There are always those—including in Norway—who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.
My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: the attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thinks al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.
The Norwegian government and left-wing media wants there to be two sectors in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, as compared with those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.
What I wrote in the “Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.
Here are some good responses to the situation:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/08/norways-deputy-foreign-minister-appeals.html
A collection of antisemitic cartoons in the Norwegian media:
http://www.israelwhat.com/anti-semtic-cartoons-in-the-mainstream-media/
Alan Dershowitz article (free registration required)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704474804576222561887244764.html
A long analysis of Norway’s actions
http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-song-of-norway-its-antisemitic.html
Peres and Store quotes: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/05/06/peres-criticizes-norway-on-hamas/
Zahhar quote, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/3051.htm
Haniya quote http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2910.htm
A fascinating story about a Norwegian-Arab politician from Syria who has renounced her former antisemitism and become a critic of Norway's policy from that perspective.
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/more-tolerance-norway
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Obama Administration's "Mission Accomplished" Fallacy in the War on Terrorism
By Barry Rubin
Leon Panetta, leaving the CIA directorship post to become secretary of defense, and General David Petraeus, leaving the job of commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to become CIA chief, have just come close to declaring victory in the war against terrorism, though that's a phrase the Obama Administration refuses to use.
Good news, says Panetta. Once the United States knocks off about 20 al-Qaida leaders currently in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa, that organization will be out of commission. And while the Taliban cannot be quickly wiped out, says Petraeus, it can be "neutralized" so that it won't cause much trouble in future.
Uh-oh. Here's my proposed headline: Obama Administration Says: Make Deal with September 11 Accomplices. How's that sound? That's what's really going on, a deal with the terrorists and not a defeat of them.
And there's much worse to come in this policy.
Read more
Leon Panetta, leaving the CIA directorship post to become secretary of defense, and General David Petraeus, leaving the job of commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to become CIA chief, have just come close to declaring victory in the war against terrorism, though that's a phrase the Obama Administration refuses to use.
Good news, says Panetta. Once the United States knocks off about 20 al-Qaida leaders currently in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and North Africa, that organization will be out of commission. And while the Taliban cannot be quickly wiped out, says Petraeus, it can be "neutralized" so that it won't cause much trouble in future.
Uh-oh. Here's my proposed headline: Obama Administration Says: Make Deal with September 11 Accomplices. How's that sound? That's what's really going on, a deal with the terrorists and not a defeat of them.
And there's much worse to come in this policy.
Read more
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
My Adventures as An Alleged Terrorist
By Barry Rubin
The North American airport security systems are a perfect metaphor for Western policies toward the Middle East. Consider my last two trips between the United States and Canada when each time I’ve been identified as a potentially dangerous terrorist. There was no interest about who I was or any evidence I could offer, each time silly things set off alarm bells against me while those who should have been watched more carefully walked through. In that way, the U.S. government has eagerly helped bring down the Egyptian government and subverted the security of Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (among others), while waving through Syria, the Turkish regime, Hizballah, and at times even Iran as no problem. Here is a brief account of my adventures.
Read more
The North American airport security systems are a perfect metaphor for Western policies toward the Middle East. Consider my last two trips between the United States and Canada when each time I’ve been identified as a potentially dangerous terrorist. There was no interest about who I was or any evidence I could offer, each time silly things set off alarm bells against me while those who should have been watched more carefully walked through. In that way, the U.S. government has eagerly helped bring down the Egyptian government and subverted the security of Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (among others), while waving through Syria, the Turkish regime, Hizballah, and at times even Iran as no problem. Here is a brief account of my adventures.
Read more
Friday, May 13, 2011
President Obama’s “Reset” of Relations with Muslims and a Massacre in Pakistan
This article is published on PajamasMedia.
By Barry Rubin
There’s something particularly poignant about news that at least 80 people were killed in Charsadda, Pakistan, by a Taliban attack on a police training center there. It isn’t that the event was so unique—except for one feature—but it is a suitable symbol of the situation in the Muslim-majority world today and how messed up is the Western perception of that part of the world.
The unique aspect is that the attackers said they are taking revenge for the killing of Usama bin Ladin by the United States.
And so as Americans cheer, 80 Pakistani families are in mourning. Let me quickly add that I do not blame the United States for this new mass murder. The crime is on the terrorists’ head. Nor do I believe the United States should not have killed bin Ladin. Not at all.
But this is a teachable moment so let’s summarize the lessons.
--Terrorism goes on. The death of one man or even of one organization won’t end it.
--If the United States had not killed bin Ladin on that particular day, in that place, or in that way, the Charsadda attack would have happened anyway. Thus, terrorists use specific events as excuses to do what they would have done anyway.
--Pakistan, albeit not to its credit, had nothing to do with the killing. In fact, major elements in the government protected bin Ladin while even more of the regime opposed the U.S. attack. Terrorists don't kill people because their victims are "guilty" nor do they need a "good reason" for murder. Their reason is the attempt to stage a revolutionary transformation of their society which they believe is mandated by the will of God and also would give them wealth and power.
--The main cause of terrorism is not America (or Israel, or any other country) killing terrorists but revolutionary Islamism’s attempts to seize state power or of those revolutionary Islamists (and their allies) already in power (see Iran, Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and perhaps soon the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?) to overthrow neighbors.
--These policemen were targets not because they were oppressive instruments of capitalism or imperialism but because the revolutionaries want to destroy order so they can operate in a situation of anarchy which they hope to replace with their own rule.
--Most of the victims of terrorism are Muslim but those who proclaim their love of Muslims and of Third World people (the Western left and most Muslim activists there) couldn’t care less about these thousands of killings. Their only interest is to blame them on America, Israel, the West, or Islamophobia. In fact, they attempt to interfere with the battle against the terrorists and revolutionary Islamists, thus leading to the death of more Muslims.
--Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it is a reflection of the movement’s ultimate totalitarian and repressive aims.
--If revolutionary Islamism was just a heretical caricature of Islam then no Muslims would follow it. Why did millions of Iranians support the Islamic Republic? Why has Hizballah come to dominate the Lebanese Shia community? Why will millions of Egyptians vote for Muslim Brotherhood candidates? The reason is that revolutionary Islamism is a "legitimate" interpretation of Islam based on its texts and traditions. But it is not the only, or "best," or most beneficial (for Muslims and others) interpretation. To deny that Islamism is derived from Islam won't convince any Muslims because they know better. This is a battle over politics and interpretation, not "Islamophobia," a concept largely created by Islamists for their own benefit.
--Relatively moderate Arab governments are not just using the threat of revolutionary Islamism to stay in power (although they do that also) but as a reflection of a very real danger to their countries and societies. Whatever one thinks of the Mubarak regime, a Brotherhood regime would be worse. In contrast, it is ridiculous to protect the Assad regime in Syria because it is an ally of revolutionary Islamists, helping them to murder people in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon.
--Any true friend of Muslims would want the revolutionary Islamists defeated and the regimes supporting them overthrown. Such a person would join the fight against not only al-Qaida but also Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and the Taliban.
--Most of the obsessive demonization of Israel today does not spring from some humanitarian impulse but is orchestrated by revolutionary Islamists and their Western allies (witting or otherwise) to commit genocide on Israeli Jews, expel or oppress Palestinian Christians, and impose a totalitarian state on Palestinians.
--Until Western leaders understand the above principles, their policies will not only fail they will be counterproductive for the interests of both their own countries and millions of Muslims, who do not want to be ruled by revolutionary Islamism.
Now here's an interesting question. Suppose the above list of propositions was submitted to leading politicians, policymakers, journalists, and academic experts, how many of these points would they accept as obvious and how many totally reject? If this list was given to average people how many of these points would they say that they've never heard expressed by their mass media or leaders?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
A Detailed Account of President Obama's Great Accomplishment in Killing Usama bin Laden
This article is published in PajamasMedia. The full text is published here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
Military Officer: Mr. President, on the basis of hard work and intelligence-gathering over the last nine years we now know where bin Laden is. We believe we can kill him and get our men out again safely without causing many--if any--civilian casualties. Do we have your approval for the operation?
Obama: Let me think about it.
Obama (sixteen hours later): OK, go ahead.
I know many people will think the above account doesn't give the president enough credit. But as a corrective to many of the inflated accounts being offered in which the president is receiving--and taking--full credit for the operation, I think it is reasonable.
Moreover, I think there is no way that Obama could have said "no" and was quite aware that if he did not give the go-ahead sooner or later the news would have leaked out and he would have looked very bad indeed. There would have been a huge political cost.
Even if the team had failed to kill or capture bin Ladin, been wiped out, or killed civilians inadvertently, the domestic popular support for getting bin Laden is so great that no one would have faulted Obama for trying. Obama would have been given credit even by his opponents and would have received sympathy for taking a tough decision and feeling remorse for the suffering incurred on others.
This was simply not a difficult or courageous decision to make. And that's an hone
st and accurate assessment--not a merely cynical one--even if one contrary to the general conventional wisdom reactions. The president made the right decision but any other outcome was quite unlikely.
It isn't that Obama hasn't made some tough or arguably courageous foreign policy decisions--the Afghan policy, the Libyan intervention, not to do more against the Syrian dictatorship, demanding the immediate downfall of the Egyptian regime, etc.--the problem is that all of those decisions were wrong ones.
All of the credit should belong to the career military and intelligence people who gathered the information, made the assessments, put together the operation's plan--if anything had gone wrong they, not Obama, would have been fired--and risked their lives to make this happen.
By Barry Rubin
Military Officer: Mr. President, on the basis of hard work and intelligence-gathering over the last nine years we now know where bin Laden is. We believe we can kill him and get our men out again safely without causing many--if any--civilian casualties. Do we have your approval for the operation?
Obama: Let me think about it.
Obama (sixteen hours later): OK, go ahead.
I know many people will think the above account doesn't give the president enough credit. But as a corrective to many of the inflated accounts being offered in which the president is receiving--and taking--full credit for the operation, I think it is reasonable.
Moreover, I think there is no way that Obama could have said "no" and was quite aware that if he did not give the go-ahead sooner or later the news would have leaked out and he would have looked very bad indeed. There would have been a huge political cost.
Even if the team had failed to kill or capture bin Ladin, been wiped out, or killed civilians inadvertently, the domestic popular support for getting bin Laden is so great that no one would have faulted Obama for trying. Obama would have been given credit even by his opponents and would have received sympathy for taking a tough decision and feeling remorse for the suffering incurred on others.
This was simply not a difficult or courageous decision to make. And that's an hone
st and accurate assessment--not a merely cynical one--even if one contrary to the general conventional wisdom reactions. The president made the right decision but any other outcome was quite unlikely.
It isn't that Obama hasn't made some tough or arguably courageous foreign policy decisions--the Afghan policy, the Libyan intervention, not to do more against the Syrian dictatorship, demanding the immediate downfall of the Egyptian regime, etc.--the problem is that all of those decisions were wrong ones.
All of the credit should belong to the career military and intelligence people who gathered the information, made the assessments, put together the operation's plan--if anything had gone wrong they, not Obama, would have been fired--and risked their lives to make this happen.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Bin Laden's Death Creates Teachable Moments about the Middle East
This article was published on PajamasMedia. The text is provided here for your convenience.
DOROTHY: “I thought you said she was dead.”
GLINDA: “That was her sister--the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of the West. And she's worse than the other one was.”
--“The Wizard of Oz”
By Barry Rubin
It's astounding that Hamas, Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood all issued pro-bin Laden statements. They didn't have to do it. He was no friend of theirs. Yet out of Islamic solidarity, anti-Western hatred, and perhaps fear that it could happen to them they did. It's extraordinary these groups could say such statements and not be totally discredited in American eyes for taking the side of the September 11 terrorist leader.
Ding-dong, bin-Ladin’s dead. The Wicked Terrorist of the West is no more. But there are plenty more around.
In fact, several events are already proving it. The question is: Does the U.S. government, its European friends, and the Munchkins of their intellectual elite know a wicked witch when they see one?
Even the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades of Fatah—the ruling party in the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (PA) of which “President” Mahmoud Abbas is a leader (Abbas himself didn't criticize the operation)—cheered bin Laden. In other words, the militia of a group that has received lavish U.S. funding has now endorsed the September 11 attacks! Will the mass media notice this point? Will Congress?
To make the story even more interesting, Palestinian Media Watch pointed out that the Palestinian news agency edited out that message in its English-language site. What a marvelous case study of the usual practice of expressing extremism in Arabic for their own audience and moderation in English for the Western journalists, policymakers, and “experts.”
The statement is truly remarkable. Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigades didn’t owe bin Laden anything. It is supposedly a secular-oriented group and has never cooperated with al-Qaeda. Yet so great is the power of radical Islamism, anti-Americanism, and pure hatred of the “other” that this group—which easily could have remained silent—couldn’t help itself.
The statement reads—and note the use of the word “jihad” from a Fatah group:
“The Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Brigades mourned Tuesday the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, following his assassination Sunday by American troops in Pakistan.
“His death, a statement said, `won't stop our Jihad mission against injustice and occupation….The Islamic nation was shocked with the news that bin Laden had been killed by the non-believers."
He left a generation who follows the education he gave in Jihad, the statement continued. The fighters in Palestine and around the world who have lost their leaders did not stop their mission and will continue in the tutelage of their masters."
"We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The umma, [Islamic nation] which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing.'"
And Ma’an in English changed the end of that passage as follows:
"We tell the Israeli and the American occupiers that we have leaders who have changed history with their Jihad and their steadfastness. We are ready to sacrifice our lives to bring back peace."
Get it? The Fatah group says jihad, Islamism, terrorism hooray! Bin Laden was their great teacher. But the version given out to the world is that they are ready to die for peace. This is the gap that usually exists and usually goes unnoticed.
It is less surprising that Hamas expressed anger at its sister’s demise. Yet remember that historically Hamas was not an ally of bin Laden's. Yet it couldn't resist either. Hamas’s candidate for Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh—you know, the guy we are always being told leads the “moderate” faction—mourned the death of this “Arab holy warrior.” He was confirming that bin Ladin was properly waging jihad.
Haniyeh continued, “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”
Now, if you just see that line quoted consider what it means. Haniyeh is declaring a blood feud with the United States which means that Hamas is committing itself to kill Americans. Saying that the United States sheds “Muslim and Arab blood” is not an accidental phrase.
Of course, this comes after the U.S. government successfully intervened to press Israel to reduce sanctions on the Gaza Strip to an absolute minimum; okayed the passing of $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money to the Gaza Strip (through the Palestinian Authority) to take care of folks there; and helped overturn an Egyptian government keeping Hamas in check.
You call that gratitude? Objectively, the Obama Administration has been one of Hamas’s best friends. Moreover, Hamas has just signed a unity agreement with Fatah. Scores of countries will vote in September at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Fatah-Hamas government unconditionally.
Incidentally, note that it is portrayed as an act of aggression for the United States to try to kill or capture the man who launched a bloody, unprovoked attack on it. This is precisely the way much of the Western mass media and a number of governments portray Israel's self-defense against terror attacks.
The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl asks the right question:
“Should the mourner of bin Laden be recognized as a worthy partner for peace with Israel, or a potential leader of a new Arab state? Haniyeh’s comments won’t leave the White House--which has been weighing how to respond to the Palestinian unity deal -- with much of a choice.”
Perhaps and perhaps not. And how about the leaders of all those other democratic countries just aching to break bread with Hamas? In fact, what is career moderate Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian Authority making a deal with Hamas?
Well, a few hours later the PA signed a unity agreement with Hamas. Backing the September 11 attack seems no barrier to their cooperation. Or to continued U.S. aid and diplomatic support? Or to Europeans supporting a Fatah-Hamas state? Guess what? The British government immediately issued a statement applauding the Fatah-Hamas deal.
And that’s not all. Haniyeh also urged the Palestinian Authority to rescind its past recognition of Israel. Remember, that’s no longer a demand by an enemy but a proposal made by a partner and ally. In Haniyeh’s words: Israel’s presence “on our land is illegal and cannot be recognized.” Be sure that he was not talking about parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem but the whole shebang.
Meanwhile, the Syrian regime’s killing of more than 500 unarmed demonstrators is not damaging its standing at the UN, where Syria may soon receive a seat on the Human Rights’ Council. Well, why not? Libya and Iran have achieved such rewards.
And what about Hizballah, now a major part of Lebanon’s government, involved in such events as the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks, killing 242 Americans, and a number of kidnappings including the horrible torture and murder of Colonel Rich Higgins?
Then there's the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader called for violent Jihad to destroy America in October 2010. Four months later, the president of the United States publicly accepted its inclusion in a future Egyptian government. Might this not be a good idea?
Finally, if the United States can do a targeted killing of a terrorist who had killed Americans, unintentionally knocking off an innocent bystander in the process, how can anyone complain about Israel doing the same thing?
Yes, there’s a great deal to learn from the bin Laden assassination.
PS:
Maan has issued a "correction" on the translation but then al-Aqsa Brigades denied having made the statement. Presumably, Maan would not have been fooled by imposters and Abbas probably told the al-Aqsa Brigades that the statement was very damaging and should be withdrawn.
Oh, and by the way, appeasement won't work with these forces because they view the conflict as irreconcilible no matter what America does. Here's a little parable:
DOROTHY: "You can have your old slippers but give me back Toto...." The Witch tries to remove the slippers and gets a terrible shock from them.
DOROTHY: "I'm sorry. I didn't do it! Can I still have my dog?"
WITCH: "No!....Those slippers will never come off, as long as....you're alive."
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704330404576291193887494596.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4062337,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-mourners-of-binladen/2011/04/19/AFlPCfYF_blog.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/wl_nm/us_binladen_palestinians_2
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4976
DOROTHY: “I thought you said she was dead.”
GLINDA: “That was her sister--the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of the West. And she's worse than the other one was.”
--“The Wizard of Oz”
By Barry Rubin
It's astounding that Hamas, Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood all issued pro-bin Laden statements. They didn't have to do it. He was no friend of theirs. Yet out of Islamic solidarity, anti-Western hatred, and perhaps fear that it could happen to them they did. It's extraordinary these groups could say such statements and not be totally discredited in American eyes for taking the side of the September 11 terrorist leader.
Ding-dong, bin-Ladin’s dead. The Wicked Terrorist of the West is no more. But there are plenty more around.
In fact, several events are already proving it. The question is: Does the U.S. government, its European friends, and the Munchkins of their intellectual elite know a wicked witch when they see one?
Even the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades of Fatah—the ruling party in the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (PA) of which “President” Mahmoud Abbas is a leader (Abbas himself didn't criticize the operation)—cheered bin Laden. In other words, the militia of a group that has received lavish U.S. funding has now endorsed the September 11 attacks! Will the mass media notice this point? Will Congress?
To make the story even more interesting, Palestinian Media Watch pointed out that the Palestinian news agency edited out that message in its English-language site. What a marvelous case study of the usual practice of expressing extremism in Arabic for their own audience and moderation in English for the Western journalists, policymakers, and “experts.”
The statement is truly remarkable. Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Brigades didn’t owe bin Laden anything. It is supposedly a secular-oriented group and has never cooperated with al-Qaeda. Yet so great is the power of radical Islamism, anti-Americanism, and pure hatred of the “other” that this group—which easily could have remained silent—couldn’t help itself.
The statement reads—and note the use of the word “jihad” from a Fatah group:
“The Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Brigades mourned Tuesday the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, following his assassination Sunday by American troops in Pakistan.
“His death, a statement said, `won't stop our Jihad mission against injustice and occupation….The Islamic nation was shocked with the news that bin Laden had been killed by the non-believers."
He left a generation who follows the education he gave in Jihad, the statement continued. The fighters in Palestine and around the world who have lost their leaders did not stop their mission and will continue in the tutelage of their masters."
"We say to the American and Israeli occupier: The umma, [Islamic nation] which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing.'"
And Ma’an in English changed the end of that passage as follows:
"We tell the Israeli and the American occupiers that we have leaders who have changed history with their Jihad and their steadfastness. We are ready to sacrifice our lives to bring back peace."
Get it? The Fatah group says jihad, Islamism, terrorism hooray! Bin Laden was their great teacher. But the version given out to the world is that they are ready to die for peace. This is the gap that usually exists and usually goes unnoticed.
It is less surprising that Hamas expressed anger at its sister’s demise. Yet remember that historically Hamas was not an ally of bin Laden's. Yet it couldn't resist either. Hamas’s candidate for Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniyeh—you know, the guy we are always being told leads the “moderate” faction—mourned the death of this “Arab holy warrior.” He was confirming that bin Ladin was properly waging jihad.
Haniyeh continued, “We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”
Now, if you just see that line quoted consider what it means. Haniyeh is declaring a blood feud with the United States which means that Hamas is committing itself to kill Americans. Saying that the United States sheds “Muslim and Arab blood” is not an accidental phrase.
Of course, this comes after the U.S. government successfully intervened to press Israel to reduce sanctions on the Gaza Strip to an absolute minimum; okayed the passing of $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money to the Gaza Strip (through the Palestinian Authority) to take care of folks there; and helped overturn an Egyptian government keeping Hamas in check.
You call that gratitude? Objectively, the Obama Administration has been one of Hamas’s best friends. Moreover, Hamas has just signed a unity agreement with Fatah. Scores of countries will vote in September at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Fatah-Hamas government unconditionally.
Incidentally, note that it is portrayed as an act of aggression for the United States to try to kill or capture the man who launched a bloody, unprovoked attack on it. This is precisely the way much of the Western mass media and a number of governments portray Israel's self-defense against terror attacks.
The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl asks the right question:
“Should the mourner of bin Laden be recognized as a worthy partner for peace with Israel, or a potential leader of a new Arab state? Haniyeh’s comments won’t leave the White House--which has been weighing how to respond to the Palestinian unity deal -- with much of a choice.”
Perhaps and perhaps not. And how about the leaders of all those other democratic countries just aching to break bread with Hamas? In fact, what is career moderate Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate Palestinian Authority making a deal with Hamas?
Well, a few hours later the PA signed a unity agreement with Hamas. Backing the September 11 attack seems no barrier to their cooperation. Or to continued U.S. aid and diplomatic support? Or to Europeans supporting a Fatah-Hamas state? Guess what? The British government immediately issued a statement applauding the Fatah-Hamas deal.
And that’s not all. Haniyeh also urged the Palestinian Authority to rescind its past recognition of Israel. Remember, that’s no longer a demand by an enemy but a proposal made by a partner and ally. In Haniyeh’s words: Israel’s presence “on our land is illegal and cannot be recognized.” Be sure that he was not talking about parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem but the whole shebang.
Meanwhile, the Syrian regime’s killing of more than 500 unarmed demonstrators is not damaging its standing at the UN, where Syria may soon receive a seat on the Human Rights’ Council. Well, why not? Libya and Iran have achieved such rewards.
And what about Hizballah, now a major part of Lebanon’s government, involved in such events as the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks, killing 242 Americans, and a number of kidnappings including the horrible torture and murder of Colonel Rich Higgins?
Then there's the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader called for violent Jihad to destroy America in October 2010. Four months later, the president of the United States publicly accepted its inclusion in a future Egyptian government. Might this not be a good idea?
Finally, if the United States can do a targeted killing of a terrorist who had killed Americans, unintentionally knocking off an innocent bystander in the process, how can anyone complain about Israel doing the same thing?
Yes, there’s a great deal to learn from the bin Laden assassination.
PS:
Maan has issued a "correction" on the translation but then al-Aqsa Brigades denied having made the statement. Presumably, Maan would not have been fooled by imposters and Abbas probably told the al-Aqsa Brigades that the statement was very damaging and should be withdrawn.
Oh, and by the way, appeasement won't work with these forces because they view the conflict as irreconcilible no matter what America does. Here's a little parable:
DOROTHY: "You can have your old slippers but give me back Toto...." The Witch tries to remove the slippers and gets a terrible shock from them.
DOROTHY: "I'm sorry. I didn't do it! Can I still have my dog?"
WITCH: "No!....Those slippers will never come off, as long as....you're alive."
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704330404576291193887494596.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4062337,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-mourners-of-binladen/2011/04/19/AFlPCfYF_blog.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/wl_nm/us_binladen_palestinians_2
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03gaza.html
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4976
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin Laden Is Dead And His Cause Goes Marching On
This article is published on PajamasMedia. The full text is presented here for your convenience.
Please be subscriber 22,046 (daily reader 39,646). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Usama bin Laden is dead. But revolutionary Islamism is very much alive and stronger than ever. Thinking that bin Laden is the main problem and his death is the solution is very dangerous indeed and might well intensify the policies that have been leading toward the victory of his cause, though not his specific movement.
It is easy to forget that when bin Laden came on the scene revolutionary Islamism was in retreat. True, Iran was ruled by a revolutionary Islamist regime but that government had failed to extend the revolution overseas very much despite its best efforts. Another such regime, the Taliban, came to power in remote Afghanistan.
But by the end of the 1990s, revolutionary Islamism wasn’t doing so well. The reason was that its strategy was to overthrow Arab governments from within. There had been civil wars in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in other places. The existing dictatorships, however, had repressed the Islamists.
So bin Laden came along with a different approach. If direct attacks on non-Islamist governments in Muslim-majority countries didn’t work, he proposed an international movement that would raise revolutionary enthusiasm by attacking the West.
One doesn’t have to isolate a single reason for this targeting. The West represented democracy and modernity, a licentious freedom and secularism that bin Laden and his comrades detested. They also hated Western policies, especially the support of Middle Eastern regimes to which these Islamists attributed their own inability to win.
While Israel was one of these countries, prior to September 11, bin Laden’s movement was more concerned about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It also spoke a great deal about an alleged genocide in Iraq due to sanctions. And finally, it wanted to hit the West to show that it was a paper tiger and could be defeated. And an overarching factor was that the Islamists did not want the West to serve as role model for the future of their own societies though they feared that this was precisely what was happening.
So bin Laden formed al-Qaida and took the road to September 11. It is important to understand that al-Qaida failed as a movement but succeeded in the broadest sense as an idea. Since al-Qaida was relatively small and eschewed political action and base building for the sole tactic of terrorism it was relatively easy to repress, though not to eliminate entirely.
The U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan drove it from its home base and killed or captured many of its leaders. Al-Qaida scattered but that was not such a great disadvantage given its strategy. From Morocco to Somalia, from Indonesia to Western Europe it continued to stage scattered, but sometimes very bloody attacks. Yet that was the most it could do. In revolutionary terms, al-Qaida was equivalent to the terrorist’s of late nineteenth century Europe, the assassins and bomb throwers of anarchism and Russian social revolutionary tradition.
Ah, but who, then, is the Lenin of our day? Just as the anarchist bomb-throwers were a sideshow—however horrific, bloody, and needing to be repressed—the same is true of today.
Al-Qaida stages individual acts of terrorism. Hamas, Hizballah, the AKP in Turkey, and the Muslim Brotherhoods seize state power. And they do so with the help of Iran and Syria.
That’s power, that’s a threat far exceeding the blowing up of a café or embassy. To take control over the lives of millions of people, to hold assets amounting to billions of dollars, to rule over whole territories and launch full-scale wars, that is power. That is a threat to Western interests, to world stability.
What has happened since September 11, 2001? We can list the terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and the casualties. And we can list the following not by al-Qaida:
--An Islamist regime rules Turkey and has seized control of most institutions and is gradually crushing democracy. This regime has aligned itself with Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.
--An Islamist regime rules the Gaza Strip and has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again. Its patrons are Iran, Syria, and now Egypt. This government now exercises veto power over any Israel-Palestinian peace which means there won’t be an Israel-Palestinian peace.
--An Islamist-oriented regime rules Lebanon, backed by Iran and Syria. It has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again.
--The Iranian regime has weathered a major internal upheaval and is heading full-speed ahead toward nuclear weapons.
--With Western help the regime in Egypt—one of the main bulwarks against revolutionary Islamism has fallen--and whether or not Islamists there take over they will be a lot stronger, able to act freely, and direct a movement of millions seeking to Islamize and eventually make Islamist the largest Arab country of all.
--Revolutionary Islamism is also a serious threat, though so far has been kept at bay, in countries like Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while in other parts of the world it has spread to places like Chechnya, the northern Caucasus, the Balkans, Nigeria, Somalia, southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, and Indonesia. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan seems far from impossible as does a revolutionary Islamist upheaval in Pakistan.
--Serious Islamist movements have gained political hegemony over growing Muslim communities all over the West. While many Muslims are indifferent to the movement and a few courageous dissidents combat it, Western governments and elites often blindly favor the Islamists.
--In fact, the degree that Western governments, elites, and societies are blind to the actual threat defies belief. The far left—which is a lot nearer than it used to be—often makes common cause with revolutionary Islamism.
Many of these other movements are “smarter” than bin Laden, which is to say they know how to be more tactically flexible. They can smile, and smile and be a villain. They understand far better how to be patient, conceal their plans, use elections, sponsor social services to win supporters, run youth camps to train suicide bombers, take Western aid and assistance, hang out with Western journalists to prove they’re cool guys, produce satellite television networks, and play Western democracies for all they are worth. Oh, and they can still throw bombs with the best of them.
Or, to put it in Iranian terms, bin Laden was the “little Satan” and the “big Satan,” the real revolutionary Islamist movement, couldn’t care less about his death. Indeed, his death serves a useful purpose. If the West thinks the “war on terror” is over and it’s time to celebrate, all the better. Countries can go on trading with Iran, engaging Syria and Hizballah, and acting as if there’s no big threat in Egypt. All the better to eat you up.
So bin Laden is dead and September 11 is, in a sense, avenged. But his cause goes marching on. It is marching forward. And as the West cheers at the good news of bin Laden’s death it may go back to sleep thereafter, snoring as the bin Laden’s of the world advance.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
Please be subscriber 22,046 (daily reader 39,646). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Usama bin Laden is dead. But revolutionary Islamism is very much alive and stronger than ever. Thinking that bin Laden is the main problem and his death is the solution is very dangerous indeed and might well intensify the policies that have been leading toward the victory of his cause, though not his specific movement.
It is easy to forget that when bin Laden came on the scene revolutionary Islamism was in retreat. True, Iran was ruled by a revolutionary Islamist regime but that government had failed to extend the revolution overseas very much despite its best efforts. Another such regime, the Taliban, came to power in remote Afghanistan.
But by the end of the 1990s, revolutionary Islamism wasn’t doing so well. The reason was that its strategy was to overthrow Arab governments from within. There had been civil wars in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, and to a lesser extent in other places. The existing dictatorships, however, had repressed the Islamists.
So bin Laden came along with a different approach. If direct attacks on non-Islamist governments in Muslim-majority countries didn’t work, he proposed an international movement that would raise revolutionary enthusiasm by attacking the West.
One doesn’t have to isolate a single reason for this targeting. The West represented democracy and modernity, a licentious freedom and secularism that bin Laden and his comrades detested. They also hated Western policies, especially the support of Middle Eastern regimes to which these Islamists attributed their own inability to win.
While Israel was one of these countries, prior to September 11, bin Laden’s movement was more concerned about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It also spoke a great deal about an alleged genocide in Iraq due to sanctions. And finally, it wanted to hit the West to show that it was a paper tiger and could be defeated. And an overarching factor was that the Islamists did not want the West to serve as role model for the future of their own societies though they feared that this was precisely what was happening.
So bin Laden formed al-Qaida and took the road to September 11. It is important to understand that al-Qaida failed as a movement but succeeded in the broadest sense as an idea. Since al-Qaida was relatively small and eschewed political action and base building for the sole tactic of terrorism it was relatively easy to repress, though not to eliminate entirely.
The U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan drove it from its home base and killed or captured many of its leaders. Al-Qaida scattered but that was not such a great disadvantage given its strategy. From Morocco to Somalia, from Indonesia to Western Europe it continued to stage scattered, but sometimes very bloody attacks. Yet that was the most it could do. In revolutionary terms, al-Qaida was equivalent to the terrorist’s of late nineteenth century Europe, the assassins and bomb throwers of anarchism and Russian social revolutionary tradition.
Ah, but who, then, is the Lenin of our day? Just as the anarchist bomb-throwers were a sideshow—however horrific, bloody, and needing to be repressed—the same is true of today.
Al-Qaida stages individual acts of terrorism. Hamas, Hizballah, the AKP in Turkey, and the Muslim Brotherhoods seize state power. And they do so with the help of Iran and Syria.
That’s power, that’s a threat far exceeding the blowing up of a café or embassy. To take control over the lives of millions of people, to hold assets amounting to billions of dollars, to rule over whole territories and launch full-scale wars, that is power. That is a threat to Western interests, to world stability.
What has happened since September 11, 2001? We can list the terrorist attacks by al-Qaida and the casualties. And we can list the following not by al-Qaida:
--An Islamist regime rules Turkey and has seized control of most institutions and is gradually crushing democracy. This regime has aligned itself with Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria.
--An Islamist regime rules the Gaza Strip and has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again. Its patrons are Iran, Syria, and now Egypt. This government now exercises veto power over any Israel-Palestinian peace which means there won’t be an Israel-Palestinian peace.
--An Islamist-oriented regime rules Lebanon, backed by Iran and Syria. It has already set off one war and will no doubt do so again.
--The Iranian regime has weathered a major internal upheaval and is heading full-speed ahead toward nuclear weapons.
--With Western help the regime in Egypt—one of the main bulwarks against revolutionary Islamism has fallen--and whether or not Islamists there take over they will be a lot stronger, able to act freely, and direct a movement of millions seeking to Islamize and eventually make Islamist the largest Arab country of all.
--Revolutionary Islamism is also a serious threat, though so far has been kept at bay, in countries like Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan while in other parts of the world it has spread to places like Chechnya, the northern Caucasus, the Balkans, Nigeria, Somalia, southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, and Indonesia. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan seems far from impossible as does a revolutionary Islamist upheaval in Pakistan.
--Serious Islamist movements have gained political hegemony over growing Muslim communities all over the West. While many Muslims are indifferent to the movement and a few courageous dissidents combat it, Western governments and elites often blindly favor the Islamists.
--In fact, the degree that Western governments, elites, and societies are blind to the actual threat defies belief. The far left—which is a lot nearer than it used to be—often makes common cause with revolutionary Islamism.
Many of these other movements are “smarter” than bin Laden, which is to say they know how to be more tactically flexible. They can smile, and smile and be a villain. They understand far better how to be patient, conceal their plans, use elections, sponsor social services to win supporters, run youth camps to train suicide bombers, take Western aid and assistance, hang out with Western journalists to prove they’re cool guys, produce satellite television networks, and play Western democracies for all they are worth. Oh, and they can still throw bombs with the best of them.
Or, to put it in Iranian terms, bin Laden was the “little Satan” and the “big Satan,” the real revolutionary Islamist movement, couldn’t care less about his death. Indeed, his death serves a useful purpose. If the West thinks the “war on terror” is over and it’s time to celebrate, all the better. Countries can go on trading with Iran, engaging Syria and Hizballah, and acting as if there’s no big threat in Egypt. All the better to eat you up.
So bin Laden is dead and September 11 is, in a sense, avenged. But his cause goes marching on. It is marching forward. And as the West cheers at the good news of bin Laden’s death it may go back to sleep thereafter, snoring as the bin Laden’s of the world advance.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Terrorism Flourishes Because It Brings Public Relations and Political Gains
By Barry Rubin
Why is terrorism against Israel increasing now? Because the terrorists have:
--Everything to gain domestically. Terrorism mobilizes support among their own people and proves their militancy against rival groups.
--Everything to gain regionally. There is increasing radicalization and growing power for revolutionary Islamism. Throughout the region and especially for Hamas, Egypt's revolution--which Islamists view as a victory for them--has emboldened radicals and terrorists.
--Nothing to lose internationally. The West, and the United States in particular, will do nothing to punish them.
--And lots to gain in terms of public relations. The Western media often gives them good coverage and blames Israel when it retaliates.
The examples of recent days amply prove all of those propositions:
Hamas, which fired or allowed to be fired 50 mortar rounds at Israel, believes it now has a sympathetic government at its back, in Cairo. Moreover, there is no international reaction against its behavior.
Indeed, the New York Times' coverage claims that up until now Hamas has observed a ceasefire, despite the firing of an estimated 600 rockets and mortar shells in two years and several attempts at terrorist attacks on the ground (the most recent of which coincided with the upsurge in mortar shells). It also mentioned, without qualification, Hamas' claim that it has up until now tried to prevent cross-border attacks despite the fact that there is no evidence for that and much against it.
But when Israel retaliated against Hamas for these attacks, much of the international media highlighted Hamas' claim that Israeli forces had killed civilians, ignoring the fact that a mortar position was located, even according to a Palestinian witness--whose statement is buried in the Times story--that they heard the mortar being fired by Hamas people just outside their house.
The story should be: Hamas attacks Israel, recklessly uses civilian homes as cover.
A few days earlier, the Al-Aqsa Brigades of Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority, claims responsibility for murdering a Jewish family at Itamar--including three children--and there is no international cost. Coverage of the attack in much of the Western media was accompanied by equal or greater space devoted to criticizing the West Bank settlements and those who live there.
In addition, a wire service story claimed that the Al-Aqsa Brigades claim was probably not true (on what basis?) and that the group was almost defunct (a clear lie never before seen anywhere in print). The association between the Al-Aqsa Brigades and Fatah was not made though it is clearly identified as such on the official Al-Aqsa Brigades Internet site!
Finally, an attack on a bus stop in Jerusalem was widely reported in the following ways: AP ran with the story a photo of a Palestinian in Gaza wounded in earlier Israeli attacks (in response to the barrage of rockets); Le Monde claimed the "targeted bus" was headed for a settlement (which seems to be inaccurate as the bomb was left in the station), as if that excuses the attack.
As for Reuters, it explained: "Police said it was a `terrorist attack'--Israel's term for a
Palestinian strike." A "Palestinian strike"? Sounds like someone didn't show up for work and demanded higher pay. There is, according to Reuters, no such thing as a terrorist attack against Israel. Presumably, terrorism only happens to other countries.
So events in the region and the international reaction encourage terrorism. No surprise. If terrorism is not only unpunished but not even criticized internationally--even rewarded with sympathy for the terrorists' cause and criticism of Israel, the victim--why shouldn't terrorist attacks increase?
On one level, President Barack Obama's response was quite correct:
“There is never any possible justification for terrorism. The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense.”
But perhaps the problem is that the United States must do more than "call" on those responsible to stop terrorism--something we all know they won't do. Perhaps it should help make them stop. Since his policy has been, whether intentionally or not, helping Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and Hizballah, as well as never punishing the Palestinian Authority for its incitement or Fatah for its terrorism, changing that policy is a good way to begin.
Why is terrorism against Israel increasing now? Because the terrorists have:
--Everything to gain domestically. Terrorism mobilizes support among their own people and proves their militancy against rival groups.
--Everything to gain regionally. There is increasing radicalization and growing power for revolutionary Islamism. Throughout the region and especially for Hamas, Egypt's revolution--which Islamists view as a victory for them--has emboldened radicals and terrorists.
--Nothing to lose internationally. The West, and the United States in particular, will do nothing to punish them.
--And lots to gain in terms of public relations. The Western media often gives them good coverage and blames Israel when it retaliates.
The examples of recent days amply prove all of those propositions:
Hamas, which fired or allowed to be fired 50 mortar rounds at Israel, believes it now has a sympathetic government at its back, in Cairo. Moreover, there is no international reaction against its behavior.
Indeed, the New York Times' coverage claims that up until now Hamas has observed a ceasefire, despite the firing of an estimated 600 rockets and mortar shells in two years and several attempts at terrorist attacks on the ground (the most recent of which coincided with the upsurge in mortar shells). It also mentioned, without qualification, Hamas' claim that it has up until now tried to prevent cross-border attacks despite the fact that there is no evidence for that and much against it.
But when Israel retaliated against Hamas for these attacks, much of the international media highlighted Hamas' claim that Israeli forces had killed civilians, ignoring the fact that a mortar position was located, even according to a Palestinian witness--whose statement is buried in the Times story--that they heard the mortar being fired by Hamas people just outside their house.
The story should be: Hamas attacks Israel, recklessly uses civilian homes as cover.
A few days earlier, the Al-Aqsa Brigades of Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority, claims responsibility for murdering a Jewish family at Itamar--including three children--and there is no international cost. Coverage of the attack in much of the Western media was accompanied by equal or greater space devoted to criticizing the West Bank settlements and those who live there.
In addition, a wire service story claimed that the Al-Aqsa Brigades claim was probably not true (on what basis?) and that the group was almost defunct (a clear lie never before seen anywhere in print). The association between the Al-Aqsa Brigades and Fatah was not made though it is clearly identified as such on the official Al-Aqsa Brigades Internet site!
Finally, an attack on a bus stop in Jerusalem was widely reported in the following ways: AP ran with the story a photo of a Palestinian in Gaza wounded in earlier Israeli attacks (in response to the barrage of rockets); Le Monde claimed the "targeted bus" was headed for a settlement (which seems to be inaccurate as the bomb was left in the station), as if that excuses the attack.
As for Reuters, it explained: "Police said it was a `terrorist attack'--Israel's term for a
Palestinian strike." A "Palestinian strike"? Sounds like someone didn't show up for work and demanded higher pay. There is, according to Reuters, no such thing as a terrorist attack against Israel. Presumably, terrorism only happens to other countries.
So events in the region and the international reaction encourage terrorism. No surprise. If terrorism is not only unpunished but not even criticized internationally--even rewarded with sympathy for the terrorists' cause and criticism of Israel, the victim--why shouldn't terrorist attacks increase?
On one level, President Barack Obama's response was quite correct:
“There is never any possible justification for terrorism. The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense.”
But perhaps the problem is that the United States must do more than "call" on those responsible to stop terrorism--something we all know they won't do. Perhaps it should help make them stop. Since his policy has been, whether intentionally or not, helping Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and Hizballah, as well as never punishing the Palestinian Authority for its incitement or Fatah for its terrorism, changing that policy is a good way to begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
