Reform, Syrian Style

Michael Young | February 15, 2004

The Syrian regime has freed 130 political prisoners, some held for as long as 30 years. The New York Times story announcing the move noted �some human rights officials say it is a sign, if a small and ambiguous one, of the larger pressures Syria is under these days, with more than 100,000 American soldiers next door in Iraq and increasing impatience for change at home.�

However, this passage seemed closer to the truth:

Many experts on Syria say they believe the prisoner release was partly a gesture to the European Union, in anticipation of the coming signing of [an EU-Syrian] trade pact, and partly to show some movement on reforms to Syrians themselves. And since most of the released prisoners were Islamists, some speculate that the release was a way to create good will with the growing number of observant Muslims in Syria� In all, human rights activists, diplomats and other experts say the prisoner release seems consistent with what they see as other recent steps to ease pressure on several fronts: give a little but make no major changes that could loosen the government�s hold on power.

One passage, however, was more revealing: �Reiterating Syria�s often-stated view [one former Syrian official] said internal reforms were difficult to carry out in the absence of peace with Israel.�

Precisely why Syria should hold domestic reform and democratization hostage to the conflict with Israel is unclear, especially as the Syrian army has studiously avoided initiating war with the Israelis since October 1973. But this is the problem: Syria has spent decades building up parallel domestic security services that need the conflict with Israel to justify their own existence.

What the former official didn�t address was the reverse of the coin: How eager would the security services be to accept a peace settlement if it leads to less power for them? Under the late Hafiz al-Assad the threshold was lower, because of the old man�s influence. But under his inexperienced son, Bashar, it is surely much higher. He can only deliver a peace with Israel that he can sell to his own political elite and security services; but he�s in no position to get one because Syria is far too weak vis-�-vis Israel.

Comments

|2.15.04 @ 1:01AM|#

...which is why Israeli stubborness over the Golan Heights (Syrian territory invaded by Israel after the cease fire was signed during the 1973 war, btw) is such a boon to Assad and the "security" forces in Syria; it provides the only remaining pretexts for maintaining a state of hostilities.

|2.15.04 @ 1:26AM|#

Joe,

Israel is certainly not blameless in these matters but the actions of Israel are in no way the controlling factor. The controlling factor is the internal political needs of the ME regimes. In other words, if Israel did not exist, the ME regimes would have to invent it.

Israel has offered to surrender the Golan Heights if they remain demilitarized. For reasons of geography, the Heights present a pragmatic military problem. In the past Syria launched tank and artillery attacks from there. Syria, apparently from need for its leaders to save face before their population and other leaders, has refused.

There is a profound ethnocentric conceit that runs through Leftist criticism of Western foreign policy. The conceit says that every action by anybody anywhere in the world is driven by some action taken by some element in the West. It never seems to occur to them that other peoples have their own cultures, politics and motivations that existed prior to and remain largely independent from the actions of Westerners. They can't seem to imagine a world where Westerners are merely at the periphery of some people's concern.

This is a very dehumanizing perspective on non-westerners and it leads to a form of analysis that treats them as rats in a skinner box mindlessly reacting to any stimulus presented by the West. From this perspective, peace can only be achieved by altering the stimulus not the reaction which is portrayed as being virtually a matter of physics.

Once you begin to think in terms of intelligent dynamic human beings making specific choices for specific rational (if not by our lights moral) reasons, then the calculus changes. It becomes less a matter of changing Western behavior and more of one of changing the internal incentives and structures within the non-Western nations or groups.

|2.15.04 @ 2:11AM|#

Inflating an external threat as justification for increasing state power and concurrently reducing internal liberty seems universal. It happens in my town, and I'm thousands of miles from Tel Aviv.

If Shannon's argument is accurate, and the US is only a peripheral driver of MidEast activity, let's turn our attention inward. Rather than focusing on changing MidEast behaviour and making it more like ours, how can we change our internal structure to eliminate the need for Axes of Evil?

Is mankind essentially structured to require some kind of enemy, and so create or perceive them when not readily apparent?

I feel like I've quickly reduced myself to questioning human nature. As individuals, if we choose to see the world as dangerous and threatening, we will combine into militaristic states. If as individuals, we see the world as generally disinterested and vaguely cooperative, large state-controlled forces are at least unneccesary and probably absurd.

How might we convince individual people to feel that the world is actually not "out to get them"?

|2.15.04 @ 3:32AM|#

The three Mid-Eastern states that probably produce the most anti-American venom are Egypt (the Arab world's most important media nexus), Saudi Arabia (the player with the most spare cash) and Iran (which has an official ideology that apocalyptically pits their "Islamic values" against the West generally...and the Great Satan in particular).

Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, and is the only Mid East state to receive significant US foreign aid...yet in spite of otherwise being a controlled society, they blinding encourage an hysterically anti-Zionist and anti-American media.

Saudi Arabia has no border with Israel (may soon sign a formal peace treaty), bases her security policy on the US, and basically sells most of her oil to us...and powerfully fuels the Wahabbi ideology that is the catalyist for the al-Qaida brand of aggressive terrorism.

Iran has never been at war with Israel and hasn't had a greivance with the US since 1979...but avidly pursues WMD, is the principal funding source for regional terrorists like Hamas and Hisbollah, and is likely taking a hand in the Iraqi insurgency.

Syria has a stake in colonizing Lebanon-- something the EU appears willing to countenance.

Jordan-- the state most buffeted by the Arab-Israeli conflict-- seems to have chosen a different path. How does that square with the "blame Israel" hypothesis?

The Failed Culture/Failed Polity theorists have the better of it.

|2.15.04 @ 3:56AM|#

I should have known better than to make a subtle point on an issue that touched on Israel.

Apparently "Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights provides Syria's government with a convenient pretext" = "Israel is to blame for all of the problems in the Middle East"

Israel's partisans like to start off sentences with "Legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is ok..." but whenever I attempt to do that, I'm "blaming Israel" or "making excuses for tyrannies."

Shannon, is it good to give Assad pretexts for his self-serving belligerence, or not?

|2.15.04 @ 4:13AM|#

And BTW, since when does country A get to bite off a chunk of country B in order to improve country A's defensive lines?

The US would have a better strategic position if we extended Canada, Vermont, and New York's northern borders to the banks of the St. Lawrence. Who's with me?

|2.15.04 @ 4:20AM|#

Joe

"since when does country A get to bite off a chunk of country B in order to improve country A's defensive lines?"

The answer to your question is very elementary...

...after a war.

|2.15.04 @ 5:08AM|#

Joe,

The problem is more subtle than that.

How Syria gets the Golan Heights back is more important than whether they are returned or not. To benefit from the return Assad must be seen as forcing Israel to return them without compromise. Any other outcome causes him to lose face and could indicate weakness to his internal enemies.

Assad rejected an offer from Israel to return the GH if they remained demilitarized. Between two democracies or even any two states thinking of primarily external concerns, this would have been a sought after compromise. But to Assad's internal enemies it will look like weakness. He could not recover the GH by force and so had shamefully accept Israeli terms to get it back. Assad only wins if he is seen as forcing Israel to return the territory without condition. Possibly the most politically damaging thing Israel could do would be to just return the territories without condition and with no previous negotiation thereby implying that Syria was so powerless as to be beneath contempt. (Israel won't due to practical reasons)

Sadat could negotiate the Camp David accords only because the internal prestige he gained from very nearly defeating Israel in the 73 war. Most Egyptians believe that Israel only negotiated because they feared Sadat.

Jordan has the least repressive and corrupt regimes in the region. It also fought the hardest against Israel. These factors made it possible for its government to eventually make peace.

We spend 90% percent of time talking about what Israel should or should not do when in the end it does not matter. The internal dynamics of ME regimes trumps any concession Israel might make. That is why reform must precede peace.

|2.15.04 @ 6:19AM|#

Joe-

Nuanced statements about Israel are nothing short of anti-Semitism. Nuance would suggest that Israel might occasionally be deserving of criticism. And any criticism of Israeli politicians indicates wholesale hatred of Jews.

After all, everybody knows that when you criticize a politician you are criticizing every member of his ethnic group and showing unabashed hatred of that ethnic group.

Nuance is the enemy of truth! Learn your newspeak, people! Four legs good, two legs better!

|2.15.04 @ 6:49AM|#

Shannon Love:
"Most of the negative behavior of Middle East regimes and groups is driven by internal political concerns and not the actions of external entities such as the U.S., EU or Israel."


This leaves out the negative behavior that the Sharon regime pursues as a result of internal Israeli politics: Sharon making political league with religious nuts who think that a "greater Israel" vision is consistent with the wishes of e some; "the great realtor in the sky". This negative behavior includes prosecuting the brutal occupation of Palestinian land which is increasing in its thievery via "the wall". The fact that this is paid for by our government hinders any push for the reform of various thug regimes in the area.

Also, our government's funding of the Israeli government's occupation increases our risk of terrorist attack. In his 9/11 Fatwa, Bin Laden stated that one of the three reason for the 9/11 attack was our government's funding the Israeli occupation.

"Israel has offered to surrender the Golan Heights if they remain demilitarized"

Could you document that? If true, I'm pretty sure that it is not a current offer.

"Syria, apparently from need for its leaders to save face before their population and other leaders, has refused."

It seems just the opposite. Assad would jump at the chance for just those considerations.

"For reasons of geography, the Heights present a pragmatic military problem."

That's a consideration that has been made rather obsolete by advances in military technology. (range)

"They can't seem to imagine a world where Westerners are merely at the periphery of some people's concern."

We could encourage this vision if our government actually was more at the periphery and wasn't giving billions to Israel every year, and less, but still several billion to the thug Egyptian regime. Jordan gets half a billion a year.

|2.15.04 @ 6:50AM|#

Thoreau AND Joe,

Maybe one reason Israel doesn't need a lot of critics on Hit n Run is becuase Israel has plenty of critics where the bombs are going off...in Israel-- which is an open society, where EVERY political issue gets thoroughly debated by the people whose children have to go to school while being actively targeted by murderous (and state-sponsored) crazies.

That is not the case, however, with Syria.

|2.15.04 @ 6:56AM|#

Andrew:

"in spite of otherwise being a controlled society, they (Egypt) blinding encourage an hysterically anti-Zionist and anti-American media."

Don't you suppose the task of their propagandists is made a lot easier when our government finances the Israeli governments thieving and murderous occupation of Palestinian land?

Also, it plays right into the Egyptian propagandist's hands when the Israeli government that gets billions of tax dollars every year from our government is headed by the likes of an idiot like Sharon, who has actually supported laws for, "Jews Only" housing areas on government land in open discrimination against the 15% to 20% Arab citizens population of Israel.


http://www.eto.home.att.net/jewsonly.html

and:http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1779

This is yet another sop to the religious extremists in Israel who exercise such a harmful influence on Israeli polity. see: : Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak and also Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

Also, for anti US propagandists to feast on, there is Israel's shameful, Nazi like, mixed marriage impediment law:

law:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/01/international/middleeast/01MIDE.html?ex=1072933200&en=b3bdb3489e181def&ei=5070

|2.15.04 @ 7:13AM|#

US out of Iraq.

Surrender now. Kerry knows how.

|2.15.04 @ 7:15AM|#

Jews out of Saudi Arabia.

|2.15.04 @ 7:22AM|#

Syria out of Lebanon

|2.15.04 @ 7:24AM|#

Homosexuals out of Palestine.

|2.15.04 @ 7:27AM|#

Rick

Did you know Turkey has been (credibly) accused of human rights abuses on Cyprus? -- as well, an obstinate refusal to settle matters, in the view of other parties?

Did you know that the United States has a long-standing policy of proffering military and economic aid to Turkey (as well aw Greece...although I know less about how the current relationship stands).

Would you like to fill up thread after thread on H&R with sundry links and childish slogans, in an effort to get the US to fine-tune the foreign policy of a valued (and valuable) ally?

|2.15.04 @ 8:39AM|#

"Maybe one reason Israel doesn't need a lot of critics on Hit n Run is becuase Israel has plenty of critics where the bombs are going off"

I am not willing to aling myself with, or allow to speak for me, people whose ideology I abhor, and who engage in despicable acts of violence. The people waging war against the Israeli population, and those of us who want our democratic ally to act like it deserves that appellation, don't have the same beliefs, goals, or methods.

"...in an effort to get the US to fine-tune the foreign policy of a valued (and valuable) ally?" He who pays the piper calls the tune. The money this ally accepts, and the damage it does to our foreign policy, makes their actions our business.

|2.15.04 @ 8:57AM|#

Andrew,

The links I posted are damning to the Sharon regime, and the case that it should receive any US tax dollars, which is, I believe, your problem with the links. Your calling my remarks "childish slogans" does not constitute a refutation, or even an attempted one.

I don't think Turkey should be getting US tax dollars either, and if their government is involved in human rights abuses on Cyprus; (that territorial dispute, btw, could be seeing some resolution soon) I see those abuses, even if they are only a fraction of the misdeeds committed by the Sharon government, as a reason to hasten the cessation of tax aid. Private donations in both cases are another matter of course.

Now, why might one devote more time criticizing the tax dollars which go to the Israel government than the Turkish government?

Israel, as usual, will be the world�s largest recipient of US aid by far. Sharon is asking the Bush administration for $4 billion in grants, in addition to $8 billion in commercial-loan guarantees. This would be in addition to the nearly $3 billion that Israel already receives each year. It's now over one hundred billion over the years!: Oh oh, another link Andrew. (I think it's nice when we back up our contentions on these threads)

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

|2.15.04 @ 9:06AM|#

"There is a profound ethnocentric conceit that runs through Leftist criticism of Western foreign policy. The conceit says that every action by anybody anywhere in the world is driven by some action taken by some element in the West. It never seems to occur to them that other peoples have their own cultures, politics and motivations that existed prior to and remain largely independent from the actions of Westerners. They can't seem to imagine a world where Westerners are merely at the periphery of some people's concern.

This is a very dehumanizing perspective on non-westerners and it leads to a form of analysis that treats them as rats in a skinner box mindlessly reacting to any stimulus presented by the West."

Shorter Shannon: It is racist to say that Syrians are upset because a foreign country sent tanks rolling into their country after an armistice, and continues to occupy that country. A non-racist perspective recognizes that their unhappiness is a result of their superstitious tribalism, and the ease with which they are manipulated by their political leaders.

|2.15.04 @ 10:42AM|#

Are you anti-Shannon posters contending that there are no major cultural/political obstructions to peaceful freedom within MidEast states? That if the jews vanished, Israel became again Palestine, and the US quit meddling then the region would become some idyllic Garden of Babylon?

It is difficult for a state to remain at peace when there is no internal mechanism to air and relieve internal dissent. The seeds of revolution find nourishment from outside the border.

|2.15.04 @ 10:58AM|#

Most of the negative behavior of Middle East regimes and groups is driven by internal political concerns and not the actions of external entities such as the U.S., EU or Israel.

Until Saddam Hussein, all Middle East leaders who fell from power did so from internal revolt. These internal revolts may have had external support to one degree or another but they succeeded because the external forces allied with internal ones. Therefor, the primary political strategies of all ME leaders is prevent internal revolt. Everything else is window dressing.

Israel serves as a convenient scapegoat to justify internal security states. Explicit and implicit support for terrorist attacks against Israel boost the leaders internal prestige. Screaming loudly about Israeli treatment of the Palestinians distracts from the leaders own much worse treatment of his own people. Anyone who opposes the regime is identified as a de factor Israeli supporter or tool.

As a consequence of these dynamics, internal reform is not dependent on peace with Israel, rather, peace with Israel is dependent on internal reform.

|2.16.04 @ 1:11AM|#

Rick: So then you agree with Shannon's point. The MidEast states have significant internal obstacles to overcome. Withdrawal of US support of Israel might well help the US, but promises little improvement in the MidEast. It is not clear to me how the absence of US funding for Palestinian occupation would guarantee the US a reverential place in the arab world. I expect America will always be seen as the bad guy, and the despots will transfer internal political frustration onto some aspect of US activity or culture.

joe: Your version of shorter Shannon makes a nice polemic. It ignores those nuances that thoreau cracked wise about. You can do better. :-)

|2.16.04 @ 1:15AM|#

Shorter Joe - A subtle and sophisticated analysis of the mess in the ME will always lead to the conclusion that Israel is at fault.

Yehudit|2.16.04 @ 3:00AM|#

"since when does country A get to bite off a chunk of country B in order to improve country A's defensive lines?"

After country A has been repeatedly attacked by country B, or forces tacitly encouraged by country B, and has defeated country B in a war, thereby gaining legitimate right to occupy the teritory it conquered from country B.

Next question?

Yehudit|2.16.04 @ 3:11AM|#

Rick, you've just disqualified yourself by quoting Shahak. He is not a credible source, even most anti-Israel groups disassociate themselves from him because he is such a foaming at the mouth loose cannon.

There are so many lies and distortions in your other posts I'm not even going to go through all of them. Here are some places for you to fact-check.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelMideastBriefingsDetail.asp?did=208&pid=1191
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/
http://palestinefacts.org/
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm

If you claim that these sources are all biased because they have jewish or Israeli ties, i invite you to consider the alleigances of your sources.

Yehudit|2.16.04 @ 3:16AM|#

"After the 1956 war the Brits, the French and Israel conspired to have Israel keep a large part of the the Gaza Strip and Sinai for its natural resource booty."

You really need to read some history. Israel didn't capture the Sinai until the 67 war, and it has no natural resources. Israel returned it in return for a real; peace agreement, and would be happy to do so with other chunks it conquered if a real peace agreement is in the offing. So far it hasn't been. Why should Israel give up land for nothing, especially to countries which repeatedly call for its destruction?

Yehudit|2.16.04 @ 3:38AM|#

The people who like to say that Israel's claim is based on "an old book" forget that the last time an independent country existed on that land before 1949, it was the Jewish state of Judea, which was destroyed by the Roman empire. Confirmation of the existence of this state and the Jewish people run through Roman and Greek literature of the period. The seige and destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem is recorded by the Babylonian conquerors.

Jut because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it is true, but it doesn't mean it is false either. Biblical archeology operates on the same scientific principles as any other archeological subject.

"Judea" and "Israel" are Hebrew words. The Romans renamed Judea "Palestina." Funny how these ancient "Palestinians" use a Latin word for their national name. Until 1949 a "Palestinian" referred to a Jew living in Palestine. A common antisemitic utterance in Europe was "go back to Palestine!"

More on the history of Jewish presence in Israel after the diaspora:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/The_Jewish_Claim_To_The_Land_Of_Israel.html

If the Arabs recognized the Jewish claim alongside the "Palestinian" one, peace would have been achieved long ago. But now their response is a renewed attempt to deny Jewish history. Arafat is directing destruction of Jewish 2nd Temple artifacts on the Temple Mount under the guise of renovating the mosque.
http://www.har-habayt.org/

Palestinians destroy Jewish holy sites, while in Israel mosques and churches are protected and supported.

I could go on and on, but anyone who doesn't recognize the historical reality of the Jewish claim has no credibility by definition.

|2.16.04 @ 3:43AM|#

Yehudit:
"Shahak is not a credible source, even most anti-Israel groups disassociate themselves from him ."

The man was a great scholar. Can you cite some anti-Israel groups who have disassociated themselves from him? I don't think you can back up that ridiculous contention.

|2.16.04 @ 3:43AM|#

Mark,

Yes, the Mideast states do have significant internal obstacles to overcome. Most significant is a severe lack of individual liberty. Of the countries; social freedom is better in Lebanon and economic freedom in Dubai of the UAE, a place that the whole region, including Israel, could learn things from.

How ever, Shannon skipped over Israel in his critique, and did not mention important ramifications of US government meddling. see my post @ 6:49 PM. Also, I'm waiting for citation for his Syria-Golan Heights claim.

A cessation of US government funding for the Palestinian occupation would not, of course, "guarantee the US a reverential place in the Arab world" but it would remove a major source of Arab hostility to America. What's more; it's the right thing to do.

After the 1956 war the Brits, the French and Israel conspired to have Israel keep a large part of the the Gaza Strip and Sinai for its natural resource booty.

But, after Israel's joint military undertaking with Britain and France was over, Eisenhower warned Israel of severe consequences were she not to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Sinai. All financial contributions to Israeli institutions would lose their tax exempt status. Also, he basically told the Brits and France he would call out their participation in this land grab to the whole world.

This episode earned us great respect every where in the Mideast, even in Israel. It engendered pro-US sentiments in the Arab world. America was seen to stand for fair play. That's the way it should be...fair play!

|2.16.04 @ 4:13AM|#

Yehudit:
"You really need to read some history. Israel didn't capture the Sinai until the 67 war"

What?? Maybe I shouldn't be too surprised since you are posting ridiculous defenses of Israeli government action, but I would think that you would, at least, not be so wrong about the basic history of the region


"31 October 1956, Anglo-French forces attacked Egypt in the Canal zone. Israeli occupied the Gaza Strip and key points on the Sinai Peninsula."

From: http://novaonline.nvcc.vccs.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Suez56.htm

see also:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Suez_War.html

|2.16.04 @ 4:55AM|#

Yehudit,

"You really need to read some history. Israel didn't capture the Sinai until the 67 war, and it has no natural resources."

(a) Its rather obvious that he was referring to a future occupation (not a current one) that would ensue after Israel, the UK and France defeated Egypt in battle; (b) the Sinai has a lot of resources: valuable deposits of manganese ore being one of them (I know this because a fellow engineer work); oil fields are another (indeed, Israel had begun slowly to exploit them during its occupation of the peninsula).

|2.16.04 @ 5:03AM|#

Rick, anybody

I don't accept the idea that the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank or the heights is illegal or immoral, simply because the UN or any other international body SAYS it is.

I believe there IS a "right of conquest" which follows from the rebuff of several succeeding attacks (aimed at the very existence of Israeli society) that confers upon Israel the right to do pretty much anything she want in terms of securing her own borders.

There is no sense in which Israel is required to relinquish any of the territory overun during previous assaults upon her, at least until Israel secures peace agreements from all of the belligerants in those previous conflicts.

These are matters which go to the very survival of Israel, and Israel is NOT required to have her own existential intersts deliberated by any international body.

Whether US aid comes in the form of direct military assistance, or economic aid, really makes little differenc-- if anything, economic assistance is less committal. We have always offered economic aid to allies at war (eg, England, Russia...who couldn't have survived without it).

Arm-twisting Israel to make "concessions" will NOT, of course, diminish the perception that Israel is an American creature...and since the terrorist factions will not be satisfied with anything less than the dissolution of Israel, what makes you think that making any concessions will reduce our exposure?

Here, as in any other case, negotiating with terrorists is poor policy-- we merely weaken an ally, without gaining any good will, while encouraging the behavior that won the concessions.

|2.16.04 @ 5:05AM|#

Yehudit,

"The people who like to say that Israel's claim is based on 'an old book' forget that the last time an independent country existed on that land before 1949, it was the Jewish state of Judea, which was destroyed by the Roman empire. Confirmation of the existence of this state and the Jewish people run through Roman and Greek literature of the period. The seige and destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem is recorded by the Babylonian conquerors."

Actually, you are forgetting at least the independent Christian Crusader kingdoms (we Franks) that occupied that land for well over a hundred years. But even if you were correct (which you aren't), so what? If your are saying that Jews have a rightful ownership to the land since they at one time occupied it in the hoary past (and this is your basic problem), and if we were to universalize this claim, well, we would be in some very deep shit world wide. What your claim indeed reminds me of all the stupid and rather petty claims that one sees amongst nationalities of Eastern Europe today - wanting to restore the "traditional borders" of Hungary, Romania, Serbia, etc.

"Jut because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it is true, but it doesn't mean it is false either. Biblical archeology operates on the same scientific principles as any other archeological subject."

Again, so what?

|2.16.04 @ 5:13AM|#

Doesn't the Bible say that there were people already living in Israel when they arrived from Egypt? God told the Israelis to kill them, but if they were naught in his sight and failed to kill one or two, watch out for some seriously angry descendants to bring in an old property deed.

|2.16.04 @ 5:19AM|#

thoreau,

Ethnic cleansing Yahweh style! :)

|2.16.04 @ 5:28AM|#

I think we should surrender the entire earth to bacteria. They were here first.

|2.16.04 @ 5:38AM|#

If your are saying that Jews have a rightful ownership to the land since they at one time occupied it in the hoary past

Perhaps not out of the past, but the present. They occupy what is traditionally "Palestinian lands" to some extent now, and the U.N. will probably remove the Israelis from the region with all the efficacy it has shown in past resolutions. *cough*.

Popularizing the Palestinian plight will only carry the situation so far; diplomatic pressure alone is not going to get Sharon to cave in to a people who are still effectively led by a Hamas terrorist. Could we or would we come to terms with Osama bin Laden if 20 years from now, he ran Ontario and laid claim to Grand Island, NY? No, we'd blow him and his ass-backwards people into next Tusday.

|2.16.04 @ 5:51AM|#

Rst,

"Perhaps not out of the past, but the present. They occupy what is traditionally "Palestinian lands" to some extent now, and the U.N. will probably remove the Israelis from the region with all the efficacy it has shown in past resolutions."

Well that is the "right of conquest" standard; which, if depended upon, also applies to the Palestinians. Indeed, the reason why both sides look to history is because their claims are likely equally as tenuous as each other.

"Could we or would we come to terms with Osama bin Laden if 20 years from now, he ran Ontario and laid claim to Grand Island, NY? No, we'd blow him and his ass-backwards people into next Tusday [sic]."

So your solution is genocide?

|2.16.04 @ 6:01AM|#

SYDNEY, Australia - A young Aborigine dies. His family and friends bitterly blame police, and within hours gasoline bombs and rocks rain down on a Sydney ghetto. Cars and a train station are torched.

Australia for aborigines!!! Whites out now!!! :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4276968/

|2.16.04 @ 6:16AM|#

Isn't this situation somewhat similar to that of the USSR and its satellite states in the last few years of the cold war?

Yes, Syria has made not "real" concessions. However, it has made concessions, for no apparent reason other than that the people demanded it. That sort of thing has a way of snowballing.

Anyway, even if you don't credit the events in Iraq with prompting this, it seems to me that, if democracy successfully takes root in Iraq, a weaker, smaller, and poorer neighbor such as Syria is going to have a tough time keeping its currently fascist government structure as-is.

That's potentially a big "if", of course; but signs seem hopeful at the moment.

|2.16.04 @ 7:07AM|#

So your solution is genocide?

No, just right of conquest. History provides no compelling claim on either side, and the U.N. has become something of a paper tiger for the time being.

|2.16.04 @ 7:54AM|#

Joe, the Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian and Palestinian positions on Israel are just as reasonable as yours, and they sound about the same. As those governments all point out, when the Israeli occupation is ended, there will be peace in the middle east.

Of course, your definition and their definition of "Israeli occupation" is slightly differing, I think. You define it as the settlements, the West Bank and Gaza.

They define it as "anywhere they happen to be on this earth."

Evidence of this stance can be found at MEMRI.org, or if you are clever enough to read Arabic, in school children's text books, newspapers and books all over the middle east; in the mosques and from politicians' and TV newsreaders' lips.

The problem is, it's hard to argue in favor of their position and leave yourself unbesmirched. You argue that we merely need to drive the Jews, er, Israelis, out of the West Bank and Gaza and the settlements. I'm afraid that when you throw your lot in with the Arabs on this, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. Like it or not, you support some pretty nasty allies there, given that their goal is actually exterminating the Jews (and for a lot of them exterminating the non-Muslims is the next goal after that) - and driving them out of a strategically and tactically important high ground is the first step in their plan.

So please forgive the rest of us when it appears to us that taking up arms against the "murderous" Israeli state while also laying claim to being non-anti-semitic, has the ring of supporting efforts to drive the Jews out of Berlin in order to make room for German businesses, while insisting that you have every intention that the Jews in Frankfurt, Duesseldorf and Munich be left alone. Given the history of anti-semitism, it's really hard to find the significance of nuance in your position.

It's especially hard when you choose to employ the rhetoric of the Arabs - calling the Israeli government "murderous" in the slaughterhouse of the middle east is like being concerned about a leaky faucet during the Johnstown flood.

|2.16.04 @ 8:18AM|#

And BTW, since when does country A get to bite off a chunk of country B in order to improve country A's defensive lines?

When Country B has invaded and attacked Country A from that strategic bit of territory repeatedly,and refused to refrain from doing so in the future.

But, our government's ill thought "axis of evil" saber waving at Iran clearly setback the reformers there.

Funny that the many of the reformers don't think so. And if you don't think having the 4th ID parked on the border of Iran won't exert a powerful restraining influence on the actions on the Iranian mullahs, and give a real boost to the reformers, then you must have a very different view of human nature and history than I do.

|2.16.04 @ 10:10AM|#

I'm with R.C. They all want this fight, because without it, nobody's desert god gets the W. What good is sharing something that your deity gave to you and only you, especially when your claim is backed up with an old book?

|2.16.04 @ 10:11AM|#

There should have been a paragraph break between my agreement with RC and my own thought on the Middle East's silliness.

|2.16.04 @ 10:41AM|#

Shannon Love,

"Until Saddam Hussein, all Middle East leaders who fell from power did so from internal revolt."

You will find that this statement is flatly incorrect; indeed, the Ottoman Empire fell directly because of an external invasion, just to point out one example.

"Israel serves as a convenient scapegoat to justify internal security states."

And vice versa; that is, terrorism serves justify Israel's internal security state and to maintain the status quo there regarding the minority population of Israeli-Arabs as well as the West Bank settlements. Indeed, the point continues to be that both sides live in a symbiotic relationship that allows to continue the preferred status quo of least some grouped interests in each society.

|2.16.04 @ 10:49AM|#

Andrew,

"...which is an open society, where EVERY political issue gets thoroughly debated by the people whose children have to go to school while being actively targeted by murderous (and state-sponsored) crazies."

That is flatly untrue; press and speech limitations in Israel are at a level that Americans would find intolerable. I believe a month or so ago you argued that France is not a free country because there is little debate in France about our nuclear policy (which was of course incorrect, there is a great deal of debate concerning it); in Israel, it is illegal for the press to even mention the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons (reporters are and have been thrown into jail for even hinting at its existance).

|2.16.04 @ 10:54AM|#

Time to start the flames-a-rolling. Israel deserves to exist if for no other reason than they fought a war to make it so and kicked the living crap out of anyone who thought it should be otherwise. And have done so repeatedly when called upon to stave off challenges to that sovereignty. Same thing could be applied to N.America when it comes to 'native' land claims. Yes, they may have been here first, but they lost the battle(s).

|2.16.04 @ 11:02AM|#

Andrew,

"I believe there IS a "right of conquest" which follows from the rebuff of several succeeding attacks (aimed at the very existence of Israeli society) that confers upon Israel the right to do pretty much anything she want in terms of securing her own borders."

And of course conversely, Palestinians have a right to push the Israelis to the sea if they want to.

"There is no sense in which Israel is required to relinquish any of the territory overun during previous assaults upon her, at least until Israel secures peace agreements from all of the belligerants in those previous conflicts."

And there is no sense in which the Palestinians are required to stop their guerilla war against the Israelis.

"These are matters which go to the very survival of Israel, and Israel is NOT required to have her own existential intersts deliberated by any international body."

These are also indeed matters which go to the very survival of the Palestinians, and they are not required to have their existential interests deliberated by an international body.

BTW, given that Israel is a creature partly created by the USSR and the USA working through the U.N. your argument about U.N. involvement is a bit strange.

|2.16.04 @ 11:07AM|#

BTW, I think people have their history wrong with regard to the Golan Heights; as it was not Syria which was the aggressor, it was Israel. Some of you people need a serious course in the history of the region.

|2.16.04 @ 11:11AM|#

And of course conversely, Palestinians have a right to push the Israelis to the sea if they want to.

Sure, but if they can't, why cry foul? There will not be peace until one holds Jerusalem and the other is extinct. We might as well get on with it.

|2.16.04 @ 11:16AM|#

rst,

Well of course the point is that those who blindly support either side view it is as their singular, moral right to exercise force. And to be frank, its Andrew who is crying foul here.

|2.16.04 @ 11:29AM|#

"...indeed, the Ottoman Empire fell directly because of an external invasion..."

No, it didn't. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, & Cie made the Ottoman Empire to sign the humiliating treaty of Sevres, but they didn't occupy much of Turkey (just the Straits and a few places in Constantinople), they didn't establish military government, and of course they didn't topple the Sultan's regime.

The man who brought about "regime change" in Turkey was General Mustapha Kemal (later called Ataturk, "father of the fatherland"), a Pasha of said Empire, who set up an alternative government in Angora (today Ankara) and conquered the rest of the country in a military campaign. He was by no means a "foreign invader".

Thus, the Ottoman Empire didn't fell directly because of an external invasion. It fell indirectly because it lost a war, pretty much like the regime of King Farook of Egypt some 30 years later.

|2.16.04 @ 11:38AM|#

"No, it didn't. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, & Cie made the Ottoman Empire to sign the humiliating treaty of Sevres, but they didn't occupy much of Turkey (just the Straits and a few places in Constantinople), they didn't establish military government, and of course they didn't topple the Sultan's regime."

Ahh, they occupied most of the empire actually; which of course why Beirut, Damascus, Basra, Baghdad, etc. all had European rulers in the 1920s. Look at a map of the Ottoman Empire in 1914; then look at a map of Turkey in 1925.

"The man who brought about "regime change" in Turkey was General Mustapha Kemal (later called Ataturk, 'father of the fatherland'), a Pasha of said Empire, who set up an alternative government in Angora (today Ankara) and conquered the rest of the country in a military campaign. He was by no means a 'foreign invader.'"

Ataturk did not end the Empire; indeed, it continued to function after he seized power in 1913. The Empire collapsed due to external invasion; without it, it would have continued on occupying the areas of the middle east that made it up (indeed, it is hard to imagine a change in British policy to keep the "sick man" alive as a buffer against Russia without WWI).

|2.16.04 @ 11:40AM|#

Well, it never hurts to review one's understanding of history. However, JB's comment above implies that the Golan was not the source of repeated aggression against Israel. This is false. It was used primarily as an artillery base to repeatedly shell Israeli territory right through the 60s.

The Golan is the high ground between Syria and Israel - the country that holds it is in a very strong defensive position, and in a pretty decent offensive position. The Syrians used it for offensive purposes against the Israelis; the Israelis have never used it for offensive purposes against Syria, although there is little doubt that the IDF could make the drive from the Golan to Damascus whenever it wanted to. Based on this history, I would say the Israelis are better stewards of this territory than the Syrians were, on good libertarian non-aggression grounds.

As for the circumstances of the seizure in 1967, well, we are back with our old friend the pre-emptive strike. The 1967 war was a preemptive strike by the Israelis, pretty well justified on grounds of imminent threat, IMO. The Syrians were massing on a strategic piece of high ground from which they had repeatedly attacked the Israelis, so they got preempted.

Whether you think preemption is justified seems to have more to do with which side you think should win than anything else. I prefer the Israelis, with all their flaws, to their opponents, so I tend to see the 1967 war as justified.

|2.16.04 @ 11:42AM|#

I wrote at at February 16, 2004 12:06 AM :

"But, our government's ill thought "axis of evil" saber waving at Iran clearly setback the reformers there."

R C Dean at February 16, 2004 08:18 AM responded:

"Funny that the many of the reformers don't think so."

I have never read about any Iranian reformers who said that the "axis of evil" pronouncement helped their cause, and lots who said it hurt it:

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/Archives/Archive_04/wwwboard/messages/159.html

|2.16.04 @ 11:44AM|#

Obligatory smoke phrase. Having the advantage of not being any kind of writer or public figure I can say such foolish things. I'm into vitriol today, and I just got done reading about native americans who were offended at - and want the FCC to review - OutKast's Grammy performance. There are times when I hang my head in shame at my fellow Americans, such as when minority groups whine about being offended by an artistic piece.

But I digress.

The omnibenevolent bit is essentially that nobody knew any better at the time. Hell it works now largely the same way: somebody "ratchets" up their presence at your border, you shoot at some of their soldiers to goad the other side into an attack. No foul, that's how it happens. There was no internet, and there were no 24 hour news channels, nothing but a handful of nations filled with Muslim blowhards on the other side of the mountains who wanted nothing more than to wipe Israel's yarmulke-wearing arses from the face of the planet. A pre-emptive strike under those conditions was a good idea.

If I say I'm going to kick your ass, and then get right in your face and wind up, I can't cry foul because you hit first. Maybe Israel took it too far, but as Andrew portrays Israel as an innocent victim, far too many - Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and the whole holier-than-thou host - also portray Israel as the Evil Aggressor on account of the Golan Heights incursion.

|2.16.04 @ 11:51AM|#

R.C. Dean,

"However, JB's comment above implies that the Golan was not the source of repeated aggression against Israel. This is false. It was used primarily as an artillery base to repeatedly shell Israeli territory right through the 60s."

And it was also used as a means for Israeli incursions into Syria from 1964 onward. As I wrote, there was "ratcheting" going on with both sides. Again, trying to paint the Israelis as innocent victims here is a bit foolish, and is certain a-historical.

"...I would say the Israelis are better stewards of this territory than the Syrians were, on good libertarian non-aggression grounds."

What history? The tit for tat non-sense between both parties?

"The Syrians were massing on a strategic piece of high ground from which they had repeatedly attacked the Israelis, so they got preempted."

And the Israelis were doing the same thing; indeed, Israel had been conducting cross-border raids on Syria, Jordan and Egypt from as early as 1964.

|2.16.04 @ 11:54AM|#

Well, no. Ataturk didn't seize power in 1913 - he was a rather low ranking colonel then and a pupil of General Ludendorff.

He became famous and a national hero in 1915 when he successfully defended Gallipoli, and in 1919 he was sent into Anatolia as a kind of proconsul by the government of the day, still headed by the Sultan (nominally at least). In 1922 he was back in Constantinople to drive out the "ancien regime" and to impose a new constitution.

|2.16.04 @ 11:55AM|#

rst,

I am of the opinion that neither side is particularly right nor wrong (historically, morally, etc.); and that even if one side were right and one side wrong, it would be of little importance.

|2.16.04 @ 12:06PM|#

Mark Fox,

Peaceful freedom? Well, not freedom for sure, as most of those states are despotic. But, our government's ill thought "axis of evil" saber waving at Iran clearly setback the reformers there. The situation in Iran is hopeful. There are a lot of non-governmental ways to nurture this. US government belligerency sure as Hell will be counter-productive.

The US government throwing billions of tax dollars to the Israeli and Egyptian governments over the years and financing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land certainly hasn't brought peace.

It also hurts US credibility as an agent for reform. You can guess what insurgents in Iraq tell possible recruits: You think the Americans have our best interests at heart? That they want us to live in liberty? Just look at how they finance the the Israeli Army's denial of Palestinian freedom!

Also, ending US government support of the Israeli occupation, and the occupation itself would take away a major pretext authoritarian rulers in the area use to resist reform. An increasing number of Israelis are understanding that the occupation is their enemy as well, and they are starting to ask Sharon tough questions. We should help all concerned and tell our congress to cut off the funding:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

|2.16.04 @ 12:09PM|#

KJ,

"Well, no. Ataturk didn't seize power in 1913 - he was a rather low ranking colonel then and a pupil of General Ludendorff."

Actually, Kehmel, along with Enver, Talaat, and other C.U.P. members, were part of the coup d'etat that established themselves in power by raiding the Sublime Porte in that year. But even if Kehmel were not part of that group, the fact remains that the Ottoman Empire collapsed due to external invasion; it was taken over in almost all of its bulk via Europeans. Indeed, a large portion of Anatolia (around Smyrna) was even occupied by the Greeks in the early 1920s.

|2.16.04 @ 12:20PM|#

JB: D'Accord! Both Zionists and Palestinians have good reasonable claims on the land. And both have a goal, probably unsustainable in the modern world, to establish and maintain ethnic and religious purity thereupon. We can hope that one day they will tire of killing each other and share the land.

|2.16.04 @ 12:31PM|#

Whether you think preemption is justified seems to have more to do with which side you think should win than anything else. I prefer the Israelis, with all their flaws, to their opponents, so I tend to see the 1967 war as justified.

Here comes my loony pacifist side: I know a very nice person whose relatives are Palestinian (I don't know whether they live in the West Bank or Gaza or wherever). And I know a bunch of very nice people with relatives in Israel. So I don't really prefer either side.

No, let me rephrase that: I draw the dividing line differently. I would like to place on one side all the Palestinian terrorists and Israeli hard-liners. And I would place on the other side all of the ordinary Israelis and Palestinians who would be perfectly happy to live in peace and hate the warmongers on both sides.

And, now that I've just made some sort of equivalence, I'll pause as various partisans of the respective sides lecture me on how their side is right and those other guys are wrong.

And the hawkish types here can rip me a new one for getting all lovey-dovey and peaceful. I know, it's ridiculous to think about innocent kids and decent people, when we should be debating who has the right to kill who.

|2.17.04 @ 4:03AM|#

My understanding of the modern Zionist claim goes something like:

We moved to Palestine beginning in the later 1800s, buying land or rights according to the then-existing rules established by the European powers. When our numbers became larger and we were prospering due to our effort, the arabs began attacking us out of fear and envy. We were then forced to defend our legitimately-derived prosperity.

The arab claim: We have been working this land for centuries, under Ottoman rule then European rule. It is our heritage and our birthright to work as we have for centuries, paying some tribute to whatever empire claims to rule us. Now these jews claim they own the land and we have no right to be here without regard to our centuries of presence. We must assert our right to continue as we always have, and throw the jews of the land.

So, who is right? Or moral? Or whatever adjective you need to justify murdering people...?

|2.17.04 @ 4:12AM|#

Mark-

Obviously the other side is wrong and your side is right. The only question is, what is your side?

Well, if you really don't like Arabs because you think they're all backwards and superstitious, then the Israelis must be telling it straight. Or, if you really don't like the US gov't, which is supportive of the Israeli government, then the Palestinians must be telling it straight.

This is the classic fallacy of assuming people resemble their leaders. However, I've seen no evidence that most Americans are idiots recovering from cocaine addiction, nor have I seen any evidence that we're all compulsive liars who are addicted to sex with chubby interns. And it goes without saying that most of us have never driven a car over a bridge and left a woman to die. (There, I just insulted two Democrats and one Republican. That must mean only one thing, in Hit&Run dogma: I'm a flaming leftist! :)

Personally, I like the innocent people on both sides, and I despise the warmongering Israeli hard-liners and the terrorist leaders of the Palestinians.

I'll now pause for stoning by both sides, after daring to make an equivalence.

|2.17.04 @ 4:43AM|#

thoreau is right. The whole mid-east fiasco would be so much easier to straighten out if it wasn't for all the damn people living there. Let's give Antartica to Israel, and Greenland to the Palestinians. Who gives a shit if Denmark objects. We can take them, easy.

|2.17.04 @ 8:10AM|#

Zionists during the 19th and well into the 20th century argued that their presence in the middle east, in a Zionist state, would be a "modernizing" and "civilizing" influence there (at least this is what they said publiclly - Hertzl argued this when he tried to convince the Kaiser to support his cause - Hertzl privately was slightly more vicious). I don't believe this has been the case.

|2.17.04 @ 8:12AM|#

muckraker,

You are likely right; an Israel somewhere besides the Levant would have been a better notion. But I know many Zionists felt that once it was established there you would have a fait accompli; which is the case.

|2.17.04 @ 10:17AM|#

"Are you anti-Shannon posters contending that there are no major cultural/political obstructions to peaceful freedom within MidEast states?"

Speaking only for myself, of course not. My point is not that Syria has clean hands, but that Israel does not. I agree that Syria needs to get its house in order, but that is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of their complaint about the occupation of their territory.

Stephen Fetchet, if you're going to throw your lot in with Timothy McVeigh antigovernment states rights gun nuts, then in for a penny in for a pound. Really moronic argument, don't you think?

rst, RC, the occupation of the Golan is a special case. That territory was not overrun during the war, as was the cast with the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai. Rather, after an armistice had been signed, Israel immediately violated it by rolling into territory that was on the other side of the armistice line. I actually have some sympahty for the "we didn't ask to be in control of this territory, we overran it in a defensive war" argument in regards to the West Bank and Gaza, but that is not what happend in the Golan.

|2.18.04 @ 3:42AM|#

"Also, our government's funding of the Israeli government's occupation increases our risk of terrorist attack. In his 9/11 Fatwa, Bin Laden stated that one of the three reason for the 9/11 attack was our government's funding the Israeli occupation."

And you, of course, believe Bin Laden.

Bid Laden has had a hate-on for the US ever since the Saudi government chose the US military over Bin Laden's group of merry men for defense against Saddam's Iraq in Gulf War 1.

|2.18.04 @ 3:52AM|#

"This is the classic fallacy of assuming people resemble their leaders. . . . "

Except that it's clear that in Israel, there is serious debat on the issue . . . while the Palistitnian people celebrate the attacks on the WTC, and the latest suicide bombing . . .

Another classic fallacy is the belief that the truth lies somewhere in the middle . . .