Middle East Politics Discussion v2.0

Well, I think the old discussion was getting stale and we need to start anew.

This Opinion piece from The Economist is as good a place as any to start.

Now please vacate your thrones

May 26th 2005
From The Economist print edition


Why George Bush's freedom talk falls flat in some Arab circles

IT IS Pavlovian. When Americans say ?democracy?, Arabs say ?Palestine?. Or, at least, Arab leaders do. Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, is an arch-exponent of this conditioned response. At a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Jordan last weekend, he barked ?Palestine? every time Liz Cheney, an assistant secretary at the American State Department, had the temerity to mention George Bush's vision of an Arab democratic spring. ?There will be no spring or autumn or winter or summer without solving the problem,? he thundered. ?We want our friends in the United States to know that this is the consensus in the region.?

Mr Moussa exaggerates, as is his wont. He is right to say that the Palestinian cause resonates throughout the Arab world. But it is nonsense to say that Arabs want to shelve their own democratic hopes until Palestine is resolved. On the contrary, many Arabs have noticed that being a democracy has strengthened rather than weakened Israel during the long years of conflict. Impressed by recent elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and by the ?people power? that has helped to shove Syria's army out of Lebanon, most Arabs say in polls that they would like democracy for themselves.

If Mr Bush wants democracy for the Arabs, and they want it for themselves, why is there no meeting of minds? Part of the answer is indeed Palestine. In Jordan, the Arab audience winced every time Laura Bush (the president's wife), Robert Zoellick (deputy secretary of state) and Ms Cheney (daughter of the vice-president) mentioned Mr Bush's belief in ?freedom?. Arabs blame Mr Bush for helping Israel to thwart Palestinian self-determination, for propping up local dictators and other authoritarians, and for having invaded Iraq in pursuit of oil or on behalf of Zionism. Some of this is rubbish and much is unfair (don't Arabs also bear some blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict?), but the indictment is widely believed and will hinder America's democracy project until Mr Bush has delivered statehood to Palestine and peace to Iraq.

However, there is another reason for the wincing. Whatever Arabs want, the last thing their leaders want is to lose power by introducing the democracy that America now demands of them. The United States and its Arab allies are therefore locked in an almost surreal dialogue. Bullied, nagged and cajoled by their superpower patron, the kings of Jordan and Morocco, the emirs of the Gulf, the Saudi crown prince and the ever-ruling presidents of Egypt and sundry North African states are forced in public to mouth the jargon of political reform and democracy while straining every muscle in private to ensure that their version of democracy denies the masses the one thing they most desire: a peaceful way to boot the said kings, emirs, crown princes and presidents out of office.

Does Mr Bush himself want to see the backs of these familiar allies? His democracy agenda strikes some onlookers as an after-the-fact justification for the war in Iraq, invented once the main given reason (Saddam's weapons of mass destruction) had collapsed. And yet he now seems a true believer. In one blunt speech, which the steely Ms Cheney repeated in Jordan, he has said that America made a mistake in having spent 60 years excusing the lack of freedom in the Middle East.

The Arab authoritarians on whose behalf those excuses were once made can only feel chilled by such remarks. What, after all, are the poor devils to do? They can prate about ?civil society?, or give women the vote in elections to toothless parliaments (as Kuwait just has), or hold men-only municipal votes (Saudi Arabia), or fa

 

Interesting piece, E_S, and a good start for a good discussion thread.

I think the current Afghani situation is the model in terms of US policy. Just today, there was an agreement forged between the Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq about combating the insurgency because they are only now beginning to realize the detrimental effect that these attacks are having towards the prospects of stability and self-reliance.

I have my doubts, however.

It will take two decades (in all probability) to see the extent of the intervention by the United States. This is only the beginning stages. As we know, Europe took 50 years after the Second World War to get where it is.

The Middle East situation is an exponentially more difficult situation to reform and stabilize.

I personally believe Democracy is mainly attainable through evolution, but it is certainly possible through intervention. However (in reference to my line of work): patients require individually-focused treatment. In other words: what worked for Japan and Germany after the Marshall Plan may not work for Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

IMHO, 'Palestine' is simply a diversion and a scapegoat to divert Arabs living under the yoke of dictatorial regimes to move the focus away from self to focus on the other. Ignoring one's problems and focusing on someone else's does not make one's own problems disappear.

The very core values of the Arabs in the broader Middle East must change before they can have any semblance of change in the way they govern themselves.

 

There's simply no history of democracy in the arab states.

It's alien and foreign to them, and it will take some time for it to take hold there.

I am hopeful, however, that it can spring up across the region. Solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a good place to start.

By the way, what is the status of that thesedays?

Peace,

V-03

 

Hmm, not a bad piece, but given its source, seems a little unreal in places.

What do I mean? It fails to address the gulf between public rhetoric and actual practice on all sides. The US preaches democracy but, if honest, prefers to have democracies that agree with it, for example, look at the vitriol Spain got for withdrawing from Iraq, a democratically mandated decision in effect.

As to Israel's success, I can't help thinking that large amounts of economic and military aid has had as much, if not more, to do with it than being supposedly democratic. A more interesting question to ask of Israel is if it is heading for a religion versus politics clash akin to that ongoing one in Iran? Iran's revolution established an Islamic state. Israel's identity is based upon being a Jewish state, so is it vulnerable to similar tensions? Will it simply tear itself apart from within?

The other aspect that caught my attention is Bush seems to be being awfully cavalier in making judgements upon the US' role in the world the last 50 years. Almost as if there was never a conflict with the USSR that lasted for over 40 years, involving thousands of nukes! On the one hand it's encouraging, as the US does need to acknowledge the lesser evils permitted in the Cold War, but it doesn't do much good if that recognition is overly harsh. Why? Risks giving the message of: We did bad, we cannot do this again, we cannot risk screwing up again, therefore we will do nothing. Seems to be some tendency in US politicians to say everything is perfect and the US is so great because of it or everything is crap so screw it. OK, so the way the Cold War was won was probably not ideal, but there's always a better way of doing things in hindsight. So what should the US do? Just take more care really, don't assume so much but don't think a mistake requires a public whipping!

Not sure what the answers are but still, interesting piece.

Vaderize, status of the Israeli peace process? No idea, losing hope really although the recent Rand proposal was of interest.

JB

 

What do you feel about this piece?

It's pretty accurate but doesn't really discuss anything controversial. I think that most people with decent knowledge of the Middle East would broadly agree with it.

I think the current Afghani situation is the model in terms of US policy.

What would you call the Afghan model?

While the country is fairly stable and relatively peaceful it is not much of a democracy. The reality is that warlords and tribal chiefs still run much of the country. Given the culture and history involved this is hardly a surprise and I don't really object to it. However it is not a model that can be followed if you wish to spread democracy.

 

But it still represents the first step in a long journey. Even looking back with a simple view of the founding of the US, it still took that governmental body some 13 years to finalize a workable system.

It's that slow but constant pressure that gets results in many examples. Not everything can, nor should it be slow, but not every situation is the same.

If we compare the situations of the "golden gulf" to that of Saudi Arabia, a picture of what the Economist is illustrating begins to emerge. The Gulf states like UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, used to be as fundamentally based as the Saudi Kingdom. Those kingdoms realized that in order to survive within the world market, they would have to intregrate some international practices, or at the very least, not be openly hostile to them.

The above may not represent full blooded democracy, but it's a giant step toward individual rights and recognition.

Other countries have only placed a foot on the pathway, while others are just being shown where the road less taken is.

 

DK, of course, but I'm assuming most people don't have a good general ME knowledge.

Basically, what I'd submit is the best course of action for the Middle East is a case by case basis. Of course at a local level they need assurance it will work, and with all due respect to those who would suggest it, I don't think they're going to look to Iraq for inspiration.

As for Israel/Palestine; as the article said, it is and it isn't a point of contention. Certainly, part of the Arab mindset is affronted by the treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of Israeli nationalism; but as the article mentions, the leadership hasn't exactly given the Israelis a reason to be too trusting of anyone not Israeli, with 3 wars since 1945 hanging over their heads.

E_S

 

Quick question: Ender, is this thread meant to replace the old Achieving Peace in the Middle East discussion?

 

Yep. It was a long thread, with some excellent debate; but with our talk about intimidatingly long threads, I though it best to start here.

E_S

 

Good call, I say . Much better star to this thread than the last one. That thread author didn't post much .

 

hm...yeah. it is good that we have a new thread posted now. people new to the senate won't be scared of anymore.

anyway, i think the best way to know about how the ME works is to read about it and to visit more then just cnn.com, msnbc.com and so on. haaretz.com and jpost.com have an israel perspective on things. if you can read arabic then check out a few arabic websites. aljazeera's english version will work also (it is biased btw but then again many news sourses are biased in one way or another).

edit: sadly i am not able to read or understand arabic so i make due with what i can.

 

A little late but:

Palestinians kill Jewish settler in blow to truce

I find the notion of uprooting Jewish settlers who have prospered in Gaza to be disturbing, but the evidence that it has emboldened the terrorists shows that it is not at all helpful to the situation. The PA didn?t concede much and instead of cracking down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad they are offered opportunities in the Palestinian government. (Rewarding terrorism). The truce is falling apart, and Arab leaders in the ME continue to beat this issue into the ground when IMO they really couldn?t care less about the Palestinian cause.

 

But Cal, it isn't as if not talking to Hamas was doing anything to hinder them, was it?

I think Abbas is taking a gamble that bringing Hamas into the political process is a way of taming them, as was the case in Northern Ireland with Sinn Fein. I still remember the outcry over the revealing of the secret talks between the British Government and Sinn Fein/IRA. I can also recall times when Adams caused much controversy, like carrying the coffin of a convicted bomber, yet the talks continued. The result in N.Ireland has been reduced IRA activity, but there are still punishment beatings and protection rackets going on.

The hope is that bringing them directly into politics it will be more difficult for Hamas to initiate attacks on the basis of having no other option, when if they are part of the government they do have other options open to them. Who knows we could even see a Hamas leader of the Palestinians! Who would probably have some connection to terroistactivity in their past, but the same could be said of several Israeli PMs.

It simply isn't true that terrorists can never be talked, they often are with mixed results. N.Ireland is an ongoing case, but the most referenced case of a terrorist becoming respectable is Nelson Mandela and the ANC, who were deemed terrorists by South Africa.

Frankly the worst that can happen is that Hamas deem it to be business as usual, so Abbas throws them out, possibly on own initiative or Isreali request and things carry on like they have done the last few months. Or something else happens, something new and unexpected. Let's face it, it isn't as if there's anything left for Hamas to unveil given the last 3-4 years of suicide bombings, is there? Thus: nothing to lose, everything to gain.

Yeah, hopelessly optimistic I know, what can I say? I'm a stubborn Brit!

JB

 

It's very simple.

We need to wrap up in Iraq, pull out our troops, stop sending Israel billions in foreign aid and loan guarantees and selling them weapons.

Even Bin Laden has made it clear that if we stop attacking them and stop supporting Israel, the acts of terrorism will end. I'm pro-Israel but not at the expense of American lives.

Let's build lots of nuclear power plants and convert to ethanol and that will end our need to rely on any Arab country.

 

Jedi Ben

That?s certainly a rational assessment, but the parallels with the IRA and Hamas end at a certain point. You?re probably more familiar with it, but from my understanding the IRA?s grievances were more political in nature, whereas Hamas? ideology is immersed in fanatical anti-Semitism. The basis for their beliefs is in the infamous forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion and are motivated by hate more than anything else. Their goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, with no room for compromise. Plus, I couldn?t stomach the thought of a Hamas member emerging as the leader of Palestine. I imagine Israeli citizens couldn?t as well.


True Jedi

It?s not as simple as that. The Islamists? pet issue is the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they use it to great effect to recruit more members. Simply withdrawing all support from Israel won?t suddenly stop attacks from Islamic terror groups. They?re spread all over the world and there a host of foreign policy and cultural clashes that they are raging about.

 

cal, I can only go with what we know. Please check out the following link:

http://www.acsa2000.net/press/Oct292004bin_laden_tape.htm

Post your thoughts.

 

Plus, I couldn?t stomach the thought of a Hamas member emerging as the leader of Palestine. I imagine Israeli citizens couldn?t as well.

* Well Cal, I suspect some members of the British military and politicians in the 1940s were less than impressed with ex-terrorist Israelis being politicians too and felt similar.

* Still, I agree there is a difference of method between the IRA/Sinn Fein and Hamas, at least publicly. I am wondering just how devoted Hamas is to its hard-core Islamic viewpoint, maybe they are more pragmatic than they let on. It is quite easy to be hard-line when you've nothing to lose, as Hamas are now. If, however, they gain political respectability and earn it by living it up to it and Israel can stop giving itself hostage to any nutter with a bomb, then things might move forward and people start to gain things they do not wish to lose. Strange as it sounds, I suspect Hamas has greater prestige within the Palestinians due to having nothing to do with Arafat's corrupted government. Stubborn optimism, I know.

JB

 

I agree, Hamas is a charity organization to the ordinary poor Palestinian. They set up schools and hospitals and such. Then they say: "Hey, why don't you join us and become a martyr?"

 

Then your average Palestinian thinks it over, remembers seeing a friend's house and a few others demolished due to a suicide bomb, remember's seeing his Uncle humiliated at a checkpoiint, remembers being scared of Israeli bombs, realises he has nothing to fight back with and replies: Yeah!

I don't know why but Israel sure is trying to prove that its stupid and consistently so. Most places, hell, most teachers know collective punishment doesn't work, it's an option of last resort that often fails because the kids know its unfair. Yet Israel thinks it can make it work. With missiles and tanks. Then Sharon and other fool Israel polticians say they'll talk with the Palestinians only if there are no more attacks. The talks start then there's a bomb and the Israelis follow the script by walking out, bombers 1, Israel 0. And they keep doing it, they keep reacting in exactly the same way so telling the bombers they have absolute power over the peace process! How dumb is this? The only way to defang the bombers is to show them their deaths, and all the others they cause, does not equal that which they want: A heavy-handed Israeli sledgehammer reply! Nor is Israel incapable of doing this, it did it in 1991 when Saddam was throwing Scuds at Israel to get them involved with the Gulf War. Then they seemed to be able to work out that they should not retaliate even if they had several dead Israelis as it would be playing into Saddam's hands, so why so dumb where a bunch of far less sophisticated bombers are concerned?

Don't get it at all.

JB

 

TrueJedi

Yes, Israel is a major source of anger for Al-Qaeda, but not THE source. They and other Islamic terrorist groups are in conflict all over the world, some regions like Kashmir, have nothing to do with Israel.

Here is the 1996 fatwa issued by the long-winded OBL himself with regards to jihad against the ?Zionist-Crusader alliance? and the Saudi royal family:

1996 fatwa

An excerpt:

Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

And an excerpt from the 1998 fatwa:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson

 

I tend to agree with Cal. Sorting out Afghanistan, Iraq and the Israelis and Palestinians properly would remove three major grounds upon which radical islam recruits on, but it wouldn't kill it entirely. The best it'd do is severely reduce the strength, with only the real hardliners joining.

JB

 

Actually, Saudi Arabia remains a far more potent point of contention for Islamists, not only because of the gap between rich (who are essentially all al-Saud's) and the poor which seems to grow yearly, but because of Saudi governmental ties to the US.

E_S

 

One thing that must give hope with regards to Hamas is that practically every senior figure from the groups early days are dead. Hopefully it's new generation of leaders are a touch more pragmatic than those of the past.

 

This interview is with Robert Baer. Those of you who've been here for a while will have heard me talk about him. He's an ex-CIA Case Officer who served in the Middle East fighting terrorism and left the agency frustrated at its politicisation.

He wrote his work book, "See No Evil" about his time there. His second came out last year, "Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold out Soul for Saudi Crude". It's a savage indictment of several US Administrations and the tolerance they have for the Saudis, beyond simple friendship.

Saudi Arabia needs reform. That much should be obvious. But as his excellent book points out, the penetration of al-Saud money into the relevant influential levels of US government means paradoxically those best suited to push the Saudis in the right direction simply won't.

BUZZFLASH: Let me begin by asking you, just to establish your background, you wrote a book called See No Evil, in which you talked about your career with the CIA. Can you explain a little bit more about what your background and areas of responsibility were with the CIA?

ROBERT BAER: I spent 21 years in the CIA as what?s called a case officer. That means that I went overseas and served overseas almost all the years I spent with the CIA, meeting with what we call agents. Those are foreigners who spy for the CIA. And you write up their reports and send them back to Washington. So I was a field officer, in short.

BUZZFLASH: In what area? You did serve in Iraq, if I recall, in reading your book.

BAER: I served in Iraq for awhile. A couple times I was there on a temporary basis. I was mostly in the Middle East ? Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Bosnia as well as a couple of other countries.

BUZZFLASH: So you have extensive experience with the Middle East.

BAER: Yes.

BUZZFLASH: As a gatherer of what is called "human intelligence."

BAER: Yes.

BUZZFLASH: Now in reading through the book we?re going to discuss, Sleeping With the Devil, I noticed there are many thick black bars through it that I assumed were censored by the CIA. Is that correct?

BAER: Yes. They get the manuscript in advance of publishing.

BUZZFLASH: So the CIA basically vets it and approves it, minus whatever they feel is necessary to black out or censor.

BAER: Yes, they don?t mess with the content. They just say: Listen, this is our stuff. You can?t publish it.

BUZZFLASH: The book?s full title is Sleeping With the Devil ? How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, and you cover several administrations. The claims you make here seem to apply, for the most part, whether they?re Democrat or Republican. And you, of course, focus on Saudi Arabia. What compelled you to write the book?

BAER: I?d always been fascinated by Saudi Arabia. And I?d always noticed that on general intelligence reports that are sent around in the field, and in Washington, there?s virtually nothing said about Saudi Arabia. Every Arab that I talked to ? and I know a lot of them ? kept on talking about the disputes in the royal family, huge contracts, the Wahhabi's funding Lebanese politics. It became clear to me, even though I wasn?t seeing much in the CIA traffic, or State Department, or anywhere else, that this was a key country.

So when I got back to Washington in ?95 ? and I stayed there until I resigned from the CIA ? I said, all right, I don?t know a whole lot about Saudi Arabia. What about Saudi Arabia? And I got onto the computer and I took a look around, and there just wasn?t anything useful. I mean, you, as a journalist, would have looked at this and said: It?s junk. There?s nothing here. And especially nothing that goes deep into the problems in Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, I started running into these assessments of the oil industry, and just how much damage you could do to the processing facilities, not the pipelines, if you were a terrorist and wanted to bring the Saudis down. And then 9/11 came along, and the 15 Saudis that caused it. So I took notes about everything that I?d ever learned about Saudi Arabia and the gover

 

That was a good article.


Although I disagree with a few of his sentiments, including this:

I think that the sooner we stop interfering in the Middle East, the more likely we'll be able to exact a truce with terrorism.

...I do agree with a great deal of what he had to say, especially the following quoted statement:

I?m just saying that one solution is to outlaw this sort of fundamentalism at the state level, as we would. For example, a Christian sect in the United States could not go into a church and advocate and preach violence, which results in violence. That would be a conspiracy and it's against the law. If those same norms and laws were applied to these countries, we?d be a lot better off.

That's exactly the gist of what I've stated in other threads concerning this topic that the ideology of this type is what our enemy is, and the failure to deal with it appropriately or the ignoring of it is a problem in the West in our governments and within the intelligentsia and certain segments of the populace. The problem is that such fundamentalism isn't limited to the Middle East, but it is found within certain segments of Muslim communities in countries like the UK and on the continents of Europe and N. America. It is a malignancy within their societies that pervades into our own as we have free and open cultures allowing such dangerous ideologues to infiltrate our borders and set up shop here in our nations. In the United States, the FBI keeps a close watch on such activities, and much of the Muslim community is cooperative here with them.

His points concerning our dependence upon their energy sources were also valid.