A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
ATTENTION WEBMASTERS. You are welcome to post this entire article as long as you give a direct link to the article on our site and to http://www.gloria-center.org
The most important paragraph of President Barack Obama’s speech announces a repeal of all prior guidelines and principles for U.S. foreign policy and a rejection of the basic rules of diplomacy as they have been practiced for centuries. It reveals the fundamental philosophical outlook of the president of the United States.
Of everything Obama has ever said, these 82 words for me are the scariest. One has to go back to first principles to explain to the U.S. government (and to many in Europe) how the real world works.
This should be the lead to all coverage of the speech. First, let’s present the paragraph in question:
“In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.”
Let’s examine this paragraph:
It is true that all the people in the world face certain common problems like disease, poverty, environmental problems, the need to provide sufficient housing and jobs, crime, and the list goes on.
But this is not some twenty-first century revelation. It has always been true, even going back to the time of the Pharaohs and the Sumerians.
Philosophers and the creators of some—but not all—religions have argued that as a result all people should be kind to each other, help each other, work together, etc. Nation should not lift up sword against nation, neither should they war any more.
Yeah, but they still do.
Here’s where politics and international relations come in. Resources, development, wealth, and strength are not evenly spread. There are always people who have argued that power is a zero-sum game. I can take from you more easily than I can work and equal your success.
And if I believe that the only reason you “have” is that you stole from me, then power will certainly be a zero-sum game. This is why, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn’t come to an end. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin makes clear that he thinks his country’s rightful sphere of influence has been stolen by the United States. The rulers of Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela say that the United States has stolen their country’s wealth.
A second element that makes power a zero-sum game is the fact that different people have conflicting ideas. If there’s a group—say radical Islamists—who believe they are following the instructions of the deity and must put their worldview into rule than power for them is a zero-sum game. Either a country is ruled by Islamic law or it isn’t.
Any leader who doesn’t realize that power is at least in large part a zero-sum game is like a man who drives his luxury car into the toughest part of town and with a visible flourish leaves it unlocked.
Indeed, Obama’s speech was made at the UN, an institution that’s living proof that these ideas don’t work. It is corrupt and increasingly ruled by radicals who attack democracy and trash truth. The high founding ideals for which the UN was founded have been trampled by the very realities that Obama says don’t—or no longer—exist.
No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, says the president. Well there are a lot of nations who don’t think that way. So what are you going to do about it? Utopian visions can work only if almost everyone believes them. Or they’re nice if you don’t take them too seriously. If a nation acts otherwise you have two choices: stand by and do nothing or defeat them in some way that makes them stop trying to do so.
Note, however, that Obama doesn’t say this is the way the world should be—which is understandable as an idealistic goal—he says that this is the way the world actually is—which is a prescription for disaster.
No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed, says the president. Well, if he means that you shouldn’t try to dominate others that is one thing, but if he means that you shouldn’t try to exercise power which at times forces others to do your will than you are acting in a way that ensures that a group of people is elevated. The only thing you are accomplishing, however, is to make it certain that the group on top won’t include yourself.
And there is another implication here: a renunciation of American leadership in the world, the denial that the United States has a special role to play, has values or ideas or institutions that should be spread to countries that don’t possess them. If everyone is equal, there are no leaders.
But if you don’t lead, how do you achieve your goals: goals that others don’t necessarily share, despite Obama’s apparent failure to realize this. How do you enforce stopping others from dominating, taking, and conquering?
Now there is a positive side to this position. Obama says: you cannot expect the United States to solve all your problems and you cannot blame the United States for the failure to solve them. If this were coupled with a reasonable leadership stance this would make sense and Obama’s credibility in this direction would help a bit.
Still, if countries don’t believe the United States can do enough to help them they will seek friends elsewhere or appease America’s enemies. And of course no matter what Obama does or says lots of groups, peoples, and countries will blame America for problems. Why? Because it is in their interests and many view the United States as an enemy.
He adds: No balance of power among nations will hold. This is absurd. What does it mean? That you cannot have a coalition of forces—say the West and its allies—that can stop another group from doing whatever it wants? Where is the alternative? That you must either reconcile your enemies or give them what they demand?
Of course, a balance of power can hold. And let’s remember the purpose of balances of power: to stop aggressors without going to war. No balance of power, the result has to be settled by surrender or fighting.
The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. If by this Obama says that the poor should not be in conflict with the rich, it sounds like the usual fare from Western leaders. But in context is he saying that the developed world should give away its wealth to the Third World? And remember this statement comes from a man who favors environmental policies that if adopted would destroy Third World development efforts. No polluting power plants, mass ownership of automobiles, and smelly factories for them!
Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War. If that means that the West should not look on Russia as an enemy (China was already part of the Western coalition in a sense by the late 1970s), that’s fine. But does this imply that democratic states should not see a kinship as against dictatorships? That liberty and freedom should not unite those against others whose ideas are those of tyranny and oppression?
Again, the point to remember is that Obama did not say that this is the way the world ought to be but that the world actually is like this. To say that one day the lion will lay down with the lamb is admirable. To say that it’s happening right now is a recipe for lamp chops.
What Obama has done in this paragraph is to reject reality and to put a gigantic “kick me” sign on the United States and its allies.
In a sense, it is the extension of multiculturalism to diplomacy. There’s no good nor bad. Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan were just expressing their cultural norms. Who can say that the United States is better than Sudan, a country by the way which is chairing the largest bloc in the UN, or Libya, one of whose officials is charing the General Assembly.
Anyone would think he has absolutely no experience in international affairs!
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books: . To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, .
ATTENTION WEBMASTERS. You are welcome to post this entire article as long as you give a direct link to the article on our site and to http://www.gloria-center.org
To say that President Barack Obama hates, seeks to destroy, and/or is pressuring Israel is a staple of the Internet rumor mill, especially from the right. A large portion of the far left would like to believe it . But it isn’t true. That outcome of reasonably good U.S.-Israel relations under the Obama Administration wasn’t inevitable, yet that is what has happened.
Looking beyond the president’s tone, miscomprehension of regional realities, and all-too-apparent eagerness to please the world, the latest developments have made this so clear that it is time for people to adjust their view. The result is not an ideal relationship but one comparable to that which usually existed under his predecessors and a situation not directly dangerous to Israel.
Indirect problems are another matter but here Israel is in the same boat as everyone else who wants strong, sane American leadership in the region and, indeed, U.S. interests themselves.
This outcome, however, was far from inevitable.
The Hostile Obama
From his political background, Obama learned three negative attitudes toward Israel. If things had gone otherwise, these might have been expressed as major policies during his presidency, the disaster that many foresaw and some still misperceive.
–Indoctrinated by the far left into the Third World, “anti-imperialist” narrative, Obama disliked Israel and saw it as evil, taught by such people as Rashid Khalidi, an Edward Said acolyte and Palestinian propagandist, and the Reverend Wright, an outright antisemite.
–He thought Israel was too strong. Israel was seen as so powerful that it could afford to make huge concessions without risk. And on Israel was the fault for the peace process not succeeding.
–He thought Israel was too weak. It needed peace quickly or might collapse and thus had to be forced to make huge concessions for its own good.
Obama only held the last of these three objectively hostile views after the inauguration but it was dissipated by the first half-year or so of his experience. The other two were already dropped.
Why Did Obama Shift His Stance?
During the campaign he came to learn that Israel’s supporters were active, energetic, and would fight back even when almost no one else would confront him. In addition, the fact that he could gain Jewish support gave him an added incentive to pull back. Put simply, being anti-Israel was a political liability. Obama knew it and shifted accordingly.
Since the political costs of an anti-Israel stance are continuous, he needed to follow this change after he became president as well. Moreover, he needed Congress, which after a brief period of silence, intimidated by Obama’s victory and apparent popularity, has returned to its usual pro-Israel stance.
In addition, though, he began to discover that his views didn’t work in the real world. His attempt to bully Israel failed, for which credit is due to the Israeli government. A key factor here was the toughness and superb maneuvering of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ably supported by President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
The Israeli government could not possibly have handled Obama better. At the same time, the obvious fragility of the current government coalition proved another persuasive factor that made Obama pull back. I shudder to think what would have happened if Tzipi Livni had been prime minister.
In addition, as always, intransigence on the Arab and Palestinian side was so extreme that even the Obama Administration couldn’t ignore it. The Palestinian Authority’s leader Mahmoud Abbas was absolutely uncooperative with Obama, throwing away an incredible strategic opportunity. Arab states Obama thought would fall into line behind him—especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia—refused to help. It is said that his meeting with the Saudi king, who went into an anti-Israel diatribe, was a particular shock. Syria and Iran also showed they were not so open to friendly engagement.
All these factors have helped force a rethinking process on Obama and his Administration. Moreover, this is a president who, despite outer show, lacks toughness and backs down when he meets resistance. Ironically, in this regard Israel benefits from the same point that helps its radical foes in the region.
To this day, the U.S. government under Obama has not taken a single material step against Israel and no such development seems to be on the horizon either.
Latest developments
While there are many criticisms that can be made of Obama’s Middle East policy, it has swung in a more pro-Israel direction while still maintaining the kind of “evenhanded” balance frequently seen in his predecessors.
The latest examples include:
–Continuation of joint U.S.-Israel military exercises, consultations over Iran, arms sales, the use of Israeli equipment by the U.S. military.
–Changing policy on the idea of a freeze of constructions on settlements. First, the administration shifted to accepting the idea of reciprocal Arab concessions, now Obama speaks of “restraining” rather than freezing construction, trying to negotiate some compromise.
–The Administration took a tough stand in denouncing the Goldstone report, which was designed to bash Israel over the Gaza war, and on blocking its use to put on sanctions against Israel.
–Obama specifically mentioned the need for a Jewish state of Israel, reflecting one of the Israeli government’s most important demands, which is rejected by the Palestinian Authority.
–In contrast to his earlier position, Obama now emphasizes the need for talks without preconditions, thus specifically rejecting the Palestinian demand (which originated with him) of a settlement freeze before negotiations could restart.
–Seeks Arab steps toward Israel as well as the reverse, again in contrast to his original stance.
–Has praised Israel’s government for its flexibility and taken up the theme of raising Palestinian living standards.
–Did not echo the Arab demand that Israel should join the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and be made to give up its alleged nuclear weapons.
–While this has more to do with the State Department than with the White House, the U.S. government has not been taken in by Syria and has maintained demands for changes in Damascus’s behavior before further engagement can proceed.
–Bottom line. While Israel’s government professed itself pleased by Obama’s UN speech and supports negotiations without preconditions, Abbas complained that he opposes them and was forced into appearing alongside Netanyahu. Some Palestinians said he was “humiliated” by the president.
–Sometimes, relatively positive formulations are misinterpreted by some the opposite way. For example, when Obama said at the UN that he considered post-1967 Israeli settlements to be illegal, he was only echoing long-standing U.S. practice. He was also saying that Israel’s existence should not be in question and by not mentioning construction on settlements Obama was actually deescalating on that issue. His statement did not imply that Israel must return to 1967 borders.
Of course, Obama Administration policy does not comprehend things like the impossibility of comprehensive peace due to Palestinian obduracy, the need to bring down the Hamas government in Gaza for progress on peace or stability, and other points required for a really good and effective U.S. policy. But comparing it to positions under the last half-dozen U.S. presidents shows less change than looking at rhetoric alone would seem to indicate.
Can it change again? Definitely. But in which direction? If Obama is determined to push the peace process forward, the Palestinian leadership will teach him what they taught his predecessors: they are the real roadblock. Arab states will frustrate him because they won’t lift a finger to help.
Again, there are many criticisms that can be made of Administration policy, especially with regard to Iran, and I’ve presented them in detail in my writings. On these issues the Administration might not learn its lessons since Obama’s clear reluctance to identify and confront the radicals could well push it into a dangerous passivity. That, not appeasement, is the biggest threat.
But the Obama Administration has shifted on bilateral relations with Israel and on its concept of a peace process from a position of hostility to the historic U.S. policy default stance.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books: . To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, .
ATTENTION WEBMASTERS. You are welcome to post this entire article as long as you give a direct link to the article on our site and to http://www.gloria-center.org
A famous Hizbullah marching song, “Hizbullah ya ayuni” (Hizbullah – my eyes), contains the following verse: “And today through the blood of the brave, the merciful creator has given us victory, and the whole world and all people have begun to speak of our glory.” Unfortunately for the Lebanese Shi’ite Islamist movement, the main world news story in which it currently features concerns matters of a distinctly inglorious type, with which it would undoubtedly prefer not to be associated.
The revelations concerning the activities of the so-called Lebanese Bernie Madoff – Salah Ezz el-Din of the south Lebanese village of Ma’aroub – are serving to tarnish the image of selflessness and idealism in which Hizbullah likes to present itself. The movement has long sought to differentiate itself from the notoriously corrupt, distinctly nonidealistic political and financial practices with which Lebanon is often associated. Ezz el-Din’s activities suggest that on close observation, Hizbullah may be less different from its surroundings than its admirers (especially in the west) like to think.
Ezz el-Din, a Lebanese Shi’ite in his 50s, is accused of embezzlement and defrauding investors of hundreds of millions of dollars. The means by which he chose to part his victims from their money are familiar. He promised quick returns on investments in what he claimed were construction, oil and gas projects outside of Lebanon. He is reported to have guaranteed investors 20 percent-25% profits within 100 days on certain investments.
It now appears that Ezz el-Din was running a Ponzi scheme – paying clients with funds gleaned from newer investors. The sums involved are large – though nowhere near Madoff-like proportions. He is believed to have defrauded investors of around $500 million.
But Ezz el-Din was no ordinary financier. Rather, he enjoyed close links to Hizbullah. He ran a variety of enterprises associated with the group – most importantly the Dar al-Hadi Publishing House – named after Hadi Nasrallah. Hadi Nasrallah was the son of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah who was killed fighting the IDF in southern Lebanon, and is somewhere near the top of the movement’s pantheon of “martyrs.” The publishing house which bore his name was responsible for the publication of a number of books by senior Hizbullah officials.
THE PERCEPTION of Hizbullah patronage was a major factor in encouraging investors to place their trust in Ezz el-Din. As one disappointed client put it, “people put money with him because he was wearing the Hizbullah cloak.” The presence of people like him does not fit with the puritanical image of Hizbullah. But it is not especially out of place with the broader pattern of the movement’s activities.
As a major Lebanese political force, Hizbullah offers patronage to powerful families and individuals from the Lebanese Shi’ite community. The organization effectively operates a state within a state. Its areas are off limits to the army and police. This is particularly useful for individuals close to the movement engaged in criminal activities.
The lucrative hashish trade in the movement’s heartland in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon offers an example of this patronage. Families engaged in this trade receive the protection of Hizbullah, ensuring that neither the authorities nor their rivals interfere with their activities. In return, Hizbullah takes a generous helping of the considerable profits.
The movement controls 13,000 acres in the Bekaa, which produce at least 300 tons of hashish annually. Hizbullah is reckoned to rake in profits of $180 million annually from this trade.
Most of the hashish is exported to Europe. Not all, though. The problem of drug abuse among residents in the Hizbullah-controlled Dahiyeh area of south Beirut is well known in Lebanon. Not all residents of the Dahiyeh are Shi’ite puritans.
Hizbullah is not reinventing the wheel. Rather, it is behaving in the manner of other Lebanese political forces. These activities are not particularly demonic – though the less powerful members of the various Lebanese communities are most likely to be hurt by them. But they serve to indicate the extent to which Hizbullah’s pose of purity and incorruptibility and standing above the base practices of its rivals is largely a product of good public relations, rather than any observable reality.
The gradual tarnishing of the Hizbullah brand is, of course, good news for Israel. With past enemies – Arab nationalist regimes, the Yasser Arafat-led PLO – it was in the end the unbridgeable gap between proclamations and reality which served to initiate their slow decay and decline more than any single military defeat.
In this regard, another explanation for the Ezz al-Din affair is predictably doing the rounds in southern Lebanon. Haj Kamal Shour, who lost $1.03 million investing with the financier told reporters that he was sure that the “Israeli Mossad and Zionist lobby” were in some unaccountable way behind it all.
The reliable Zionist foe is enlisted to explain away failures and corruption scandals. But wasn’t that exactly the political style that Hizbullah, with its selfless martyrs and its blood-curdling marching songs, was supposed to be doing away with? As Lebanon’s former colonial governors might have put it – the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center,Herzliya, Israel
ATTENTION WEBMASTERS. You are welcome to post this entire article as long as you give a direct link to the article on our site and to http://www.gloria-center.org
Deriving accurate and reliable information from within the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip is not easy. The Strip is largely closed to journalists, and its inhabitants are reluctant to speak in detail of events there.
Nevertheless, reliable sources confirm that one observable trend taking place there is the growing dominance of Islam. This process is being driven forward by the growing strength of Salafi and extreme Sunni elements.
A slow introduction of Islamic norms and practices into society began immediately following the Hamas victory in PLC elections in January 2006. This process was accelerated following Hamas’s seizure of exclusive control of Gaza in 2007.
However, there are clear internal differences in the movement regarding the pace of change. Hamas’s current leadership has tended to favor a slow encouragement of Islamic practices and rules, without straying too far from the desires of the broader public.
More hardline and Salafi elements within the movement want a stricter and more formal introduction of Islamic norms. Events over the last 18 months indicate that the latter camp is now making the running, with Hamas’s leadership under pressure from extreme forces both within the movement and beyond it.
This change is being felt in the very fabric of daily life in Gaza. A transition of the status of Islamic observance from social norm to legal compulsion is under way.
The most obvious sign of this is the creation of the new “Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” security force, which operates under the command of the Ministry of the Waqf (Islamic Endowment).
This force is tasked with enforcing Islamic codes of behavior. Its members patrol beaches, parks and public areas, ensuring proper Islamic modesty.
One source describes how a man wearing shorts while sitting on his own balcony in southern Gaza was spotted and advised that this must not happen again. Rules banning men from bathing topless, and women (who may still bathe separately from men and fully covered) from laughing or smiling while bathing, are also in the process of enforcement.
A special all-female unit within the police has also been created, with responsibility for enforcing female modesty and handling female suspects. This force, numbering 100-150 officers, wear niqab and gloves, with only an eye slit visible.
Other forms of social control are also being strengthened. Every mosque now has an Amir al-jamia or “head of the community” who according to sources functions as a kind of political commissar on behalf of the authorities. It is his task to observe the prayer habits of all members of the mosque, and to intervene and offer help where insufficient devotion is diagnosed.
More familiar methods of increasing public dependence on the authorities may also be observed. Preferential access to desperately needed social services for those close to the rulers of the Strip is becoming increasingly apparent. In the spring of 2009, Hamas established the “Islamic National Bank.”
An Islamic insurance company and Islamic investment bank have since also been set up. Increasingly, Hamas’s ample social welfare budgets are channeled through these bodies. Similarly, Islamic charity organizations are increasingly replacing elected local governments as the providers of social services. The result is to establish channels of material dependence between the public and the Hamas organization.
Few women may now be seen in Gaza without the hijab. More and more are now wearing the jilbab (the long, shapeless black dress associated with Islamic piety).
The wearing of the hijab is now said to have become an accepted social norm – perceived as a requirement when outside of the home even by Gaza’s few remaining Christian women. From the summer of 2009, the wearing of the hijab and jilbab became required in Gaza’s secondary schools (according to some sources, certain schools have chosen to ignore this instruction).
It is not only dress in schools, but also the content of study which is becoming increasingly religious in character. Many secular teachers have been fired. Hamas summer camps, which provide cheap alternatives for poor families in the summer months, involve intensive Koran study and competitions which again can provide access to much-needed funds and jobs.
The promotion of Islamic norms in Gaza extends to the widespread banning of books and restricting of access to “immoral” internet sites. In 2007, there was an outcry when a book of Palestinian folk-tales, “Speak bird, speak again” was banned in the Gaza Strip because of its supposedly lewd content.
Today, such bans are the norm, and no longer merit much attention.
The increasing use of Islamic Sharia law in judicial proceedings in Gaza is an additional facet of the growing influence of Islam on life there. The formal judicial system remains in existence. But it is being filled with Islamic content.
For example, the local reconciliation committees, which were once a forum where clans resolved issues by mediation, have now largely been transformed into Islamic reconciliation committees concerned with the dispensing of advice and guidance based on Sharia law.
It is important to note that these developments do not represent the playing out of some Hamas master plan for the creation of an Islamic republic. Rather, they are taking place because of grass-roots agitation and insistence on the part of ultra-religious elements both within Hamas and outside it.
The Hamas leadership depends on Islamic legitimacy, and is thus vulnerable to claims that is it is merely a nationalist group waving the flag of Islam. Hamas jealously guards its political power – also from its Salafi rivals. But in matters of Islamic observance, it appears willing to bow to their wishes and pressure.
The result is that without any recognized body deciding upon it, an Islamic mini-state in the full sense is currently emerging in Gaza.
Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center,Herzliya, Israel
ATTENTION WEBMASTERS. You are welcome to post this entire article as long as you give a direct link to the article on our site and to http://www.gloria-center.org
Hala Mustafa is one of Egypt’s leading thinkers regarding contemporary political and international issues. Recently, she’s been the subject of a campaign to destroy her career because of something she did which has made her the object of hatred amidst the Egyptian professional and intellectual elite: She met for a few minutes with the Israeli ambassador to Egypt.
The Mustafa case is a real sign of how things work in the Arab world, far different from the assumptions so often made by policymakers, journalists, and both experts and “experts.”
Thirty years ago, Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty. Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula, captured in the 1967 war, to Egypt, providing that country with a valuable strategic and economic (Suez Canal and oilfields) asset. Relations were nominally normalized though the Egyptian government limited tourism and trade. The Egyptian media continued to treat Israel as a demonic and enemy state. Egyptian professional associations, many under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, banned their members from any contact with Israel.
It was in this context that Israeli Ambassador Shalom Cohen asked to visit Mustafa’s office to discuss a symposium he wanted to hold, in which Egyptians, Israelis, and Palestinians were to discuss the peace process. After a short discussion, Mustafa told him that she would have to consult her bosses about whether she could participate.
The head of the Egyptian journalists’ association has claimed this violates the group’s 1983 boycott of Israel and therefore Mustafa should be punished. Whether or not this actually happens, she is under a severe and vicious verbal and print assault.
To understand Mustafa’s complex position is to learn a lot about the contemporary Arabic-speaking world. Egyptian professionals and intellectuals can often be truly mediocre, slogan-spouting people who resemble the bureaucrats of the Soviet Communist regime. In contrast, Mustafa is clearly a serious and bright person, as became immediately evident to me in our conversations and through her writing. She also really cares about issues of free speech and democracy while showing some real courage on their behalf.
But what’s a liberal intellectual to do? Her main job is as editor of the quarterly journal Democracy. While published in Arabic, I believe that more copies are printed in English. This indicates the journal’s purpose as a showpiece, designed more to show the West that the Egyptian government is democratic-minded than it is to spark real discussion in Egypt.
Indeed, the journal virtually never publishes articles about Arabic-speaking countries, much less Egypt. The quality of the material, to Mustafa’s credit, is good but it is hardly going to spur a struggle for democracy within Egypt. And, of course, it cannot publish articles about, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia, since those governments would then protest this as an attack by the Egyptian regime.
For Democracy is, ironically but typically in Arab political terms, a state publication. Mustafa’s bosses are the heads of the al-Ahram Center. Al-Ahram is Egypt’s leading newspaper which is controlled by the state. It runs editorials, for example, claiming that the United States is responsible for all the terrorist violence in Iraq because it wants to split and rule Arabs and Muslims.
So a propaganda arm of a dictatorial regime is the publisher of the main journal in the Arabic world that nominally advocates democracy. If you understand that paradox, you get a concept of the situation.
What keeps the journal from being a stolid mouthpiece is the effort of Mustafa to do as much as possible within the limits permitted. At the same time, she is a member of the ruling National Democratic Party’s policy planning staff, a point that is even more significant when it is noted that this is part of the apparatus of Gamal Mubarak, the president’s son and likely successor.
None of this is said to criticize Mustafa. If you want to know more about the constraints under which liberal reformers work in the Arabic-speaking world and why they are doomed to fail, at least in the short- to medium-run, you can read my book on the subject which is still quite up to date: The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, John Wiley Publishers (2005).
It has now been reliably reported that the entire al-Ahram group has decided to boycott Israel entirely and to punish Mustafa. Note that this means the staff of Egypt’s leading newspaper and Egypt’s largest international affairs’ research center will be forbidden from meeting Israelis (and perhaps from reading any Israeli publications?). In other words, no reporter can interview any Israeli. If anyone from this large media group would even have a conversation with me, they could be subject to firing.
And who appoints the head of the al-Ahram group and determines its policy? Why, President Husni Mubarak, the man who is supposedly a great U.S. ally, whose country hosted Obama’s speech of conciliation when he spoke about the greatness of Islam, criticized Israel harshly, and urged Arabs to make peace with Israel. This is Mubarak’s answer but no U.S. official will acknowledge that fact and it will not enter into U.S. policy.
Meanwhile, a key theme in Obama’s strategy is the abandonment of any support for democratic change–which was a historic liberal position long before President George W. Bush thought of it–and close cooperation with the Arab regimes. This is a defensible tactic on one condition: that the United States gets something out if it. And this doesn’t seem to be happening.
As for Arab liberals, they are being abandoned by the United States and the West in general. Here’s one little anecdote that gives you a sense of how hard is the life of Arab liberals. A Syrian dissident, who has spent a lot of time in prison, during the course of an interview said: “Our government is fascist” but a few minutes later added that it was vital to support the government. Why? Because he hates the existing repressive regime but fears a radical Islamist one, the most likely alternative, would be worse.
Meanwhile, back in Egypt, while Mustafa is under attack, former Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni is a hero. Hosni was the supposed cultural custodian of Egypt at the same time as he was uttering antisemitic statements and told the Egyptian parliament that if he found any Israeli-authored books in Egypt’s libraries he would immediately and personally burn them.
Oh, and Hosni–like the al-Ahram media group–is also close to Mubarak, the man whom Obama looks upon as a close ally, the recipient of massive U.S. aid, the leader who has benefited by Obama’s taking off the pressure over reform, etc.
In one of the few signs of sanity in the world recently, his behavior was too much even for the UN (which is saying a lot!) and he lost the election to be the next head of UNESCO, the UN’s cultural, educational, and scientific organization. In today’s atmosphere, it could not be assumed that a man who advocated book-burning might be rejected for the post of world’s leading cultural official. After his defeat, Hosni blamed an international Jewish conspiracy for his humiliation.
Egypt, by the way, is a country where despite about $2 billion in U.S. aid a year over a period of more than a quarter-century, the textbooks still claim that America secretly attacked the country in June 1967 and destroyed its air force in order to help Israel. And the media regularly publish articles on how the U.S. government or Israel were behind the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on America.
The story of Mustafa and Hosni is but one small tale of the contemporary Middle East. What are some of the lessons?:
–You can tell a lot about a country by who it regards as heroes and villains.
–The efforts of President Barack Obama have had no effect on the situation. The real problem is not due to U.S. actions or insensitivities but to the needs of the Egyptian regime. It requires America as a scapegoat to mobilize support for the dictatorship among those whose primary ideology is either Arab nationalism or Islam-oriented. Remember that the worst thing President George W. Bush did from an Egyptian government perspective was to advocate democracy in the Arabic-speaking world.
–There is almost no margin for the free functioning of intellectuals and democracy advocates in the Arab world. What the state doesn’t eat up, the extremist and repressive consensus devours.
–After thirty years of peace with Egypt, Israel is viewed with the same overweening hatred and slander as it was before the treaties were signed. Thus, real peace is extraordinarily difficult to achieve and is not subject to the kinds of expectations Western leaders and media have.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. 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). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. Psalms 84:10 KJV
Nigeria And Christian Martyrs – September 30, 2009
The nation of Nigeria is multi-ethnic and multi-religious and this nation also suffers because of radical Islam. In truth, Nigeria is a frontline nation in the struggle between Christianity, religious pluralism and an open society against radical Islam and dhimmitude. Therefore, Nigeria, just like Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Indonesia and Sudan, is a frontline nation in containing the dark forces of Islam and preventing the spread of Islamic Sharia law. The Seoul Times
Other Currencies Breathing On Dollar’s Lead Position – September 29, 2009
“The United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar’s place as the world’s predominant reserve currency,” World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick warned Monday. “Looking forward, there will increasingly be other options to the dollar.” The Washington Times
Iran Tests Missiles ‘Capable of Hitting Israel’ – September 28, 2009
Earlier Monday, Iran said it successfully completed two days of missile tests including the launching of its longest-range missiles, weapons capable of carrying a warhead and striking Israel, US military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe. Iran’s defense minister warned Israel again on Monday against launching any attack on the Islamic Republic, saying, “If this [Israeli attack] happens, which of course we do not foresee, its ultimate result would be that it expedites the Zionist regime’s last breath,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on state television. Haaretz
Records on Abortions and STDs Can Be Left Out – September 28, 2009
Rep Patrick Kennedy (Dem-RI) says people will be able to stop doctors from including records of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions in the new national system of Electronic Health Records that was mandated by the stimulus law enacted in February. CNS News
Netanyahu Blasts Ahmadinejad At UN – September 24, 2009
This is the full transcript and video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly Thursday, in which he responded to Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial, criticized the Goldstone Report, and urged the arrest of Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts. JTA
We don’t like to think about death. It’s not a pleasant subject, and we avoid even discussing it seriously or giving it any diligent study. Yet, our appointment with death is an absolute certainty – probably our only certainty. It may come sooner than we expect: a car crash, a stray bullet, an unforeseen stroke. We all know of personal examples where death has come suddenly, without warning, without any preparations. When it finally does come, what do we expect it to be like?
Shedding Our Misconceptions
One of the penalties of our casual – or reluctant – attitude about death and dying is that most people are steeped in myths and misconceptions. Almost every commonly held belief is erroneous, misleading, and contrary to what we do know about the subject.
There are numerous books that have been published about “near-death experiences,” which at best are less than reliable sources, no matter how well intended. But there are several incidences that we can trust as reliable. Stephen, as he was being stoned, gave us a glimpse:
“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” - Acts 7:55,56
This notion that being greeted by the Lord Himself – at least in Stephen’s case – is not fanciful. As serious Christians, we can take significant comfort from Stephen’s experience. Paul also speaks of a “near-death” type of experience in which he was caught up to paradise (2 Cor. 12:4). Since this happened 14 years before writing about it to the Corinthians, some scholars believe it may have coincided with his experience at Lystra where he was stoned and dragged out of the city and left for dead (Acts 14:19-20). (Whether this was a “near-death” experience or an actual death-and-return, we’ll have to wait until we can ask him.)
Messages From the Dark Side What makes this subject so difficult to research is that most information is not only unreliable, it is the specific focus of deceit by the ultimate Deceiver himself. One of the first mistakes is to look for answers in the wrong places. Channeling, necromancy (attempted communication with the dead), and all forms of commerce with demonic activity are expressly prohibited in the Scripture (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut. 18:11-22; Isaiah 8:19-20). Even such ostensibly harmless things such as a Ouija board or role-playing parlor games can prove extremely dangerous and are not to be taken lightly.
Satan’s deceptions are designed to eliminate any awareness of a coming judgment and accountability, and to promote the perceptions that all roads lead to the same place. [Remember, he is the "prince of this world," and the "prince of the power of the air." (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph. 2:2)]
“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” – 2 Cor. 11:13, 14
So, what position do we take? Jesus warned us:
“Enter ye in at the strait [narrow] gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” – Matthew 7:13-15
If the gate you’re relying on is wide, with a large majority taking advantage of it, you’ve got the wrong gate! Get into the Scriptures and learn what God Himself has to say about the issue.
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” -1 Timothy 2:1-2
Before it was recently removed by Facebook’s administrators, at least 730 people had the opportunity to vote in an online poll asking, “Should Obama be killed?” The results indicating how many people voted “yes”, “maybe”, “if he cuts my health care”, or “no” are no longer available because the question has been disabled, but the very fact that somebody would post a question of that tenor about the President of the United States is alarming.
Of course, it’s highly likely that a young Facebook user tossed up the question – a person with no appreciation for the seriousness of protecting the life of the President of the United States. When Secret Service shows up at this Facebooker’s door - with no chuckling involved - the gravity of making an implied threat on a president’s life should get pretty clear.
Unfortunately, there are those on the Left who truly believe that conservatives want Barack Obama dead. There are those who consider Obama-protestors to be a vast conspiracy of insane gun-toting bigots. There are those who believe that this Facebook poll-creator who suggested Obama should be killed is just one representing millions of homicidal right-wing nut jobs. The truth is that all conservatives in their right minds want Barack Obama to live and to live well throughout his entire presidency. The alternative is terrible to imagine.
Conservatives, and especially conservative Christians, should be praying fervently for Barack Obama. Whether or not he is leading well right now, whether or not Americans agree with his policies, whether or not his decisions themselves are good for America, President Obama desperately needs prayer for protection and guidance. His safety is in America’s best interest, and his harm would tear America up from the inside out.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. Probably the most controversial thing about him prior to his assassination was that he was a Roman Catholic. He made some good choices and some bad choices as a president, but for the most part he was liked as a handsome young man with a nice young family. In 1963, the United States was still bound together in a common fear of the Soviets. For the most part, Americans still lived in solid family structures and had a basic sense of right and wrong. People lived in communities where folks all knew their neighbors and people kept an eye on each other’s children. Yet, even in that era, President Kennedy’s assassination tore the country up, stirring controversy and speculation that continues to the present day.
Today’s America is seriously polarized into conservative and liberal camps. The nuclear family is no longer a given, and many people may not even know the first names of their next-door neighbors. The Cold War is over, Gitmo is to be emptied, and Americans are currently minus a common enemy to keep us all united. If President Obama were to be assassinated, the resulting rage could easily create a very dangerous, violent firestorm. It wouldn’t even matter which people actually committed the crime, or what their true motivations were, one half the country would still blame the other half.
America needs a President Obama who makes good choices for the United States and leads the country well. We certainly have a duty to express our views to our elected officials and hold them accountable for their actions. We have the duty to tell them how we want them to vote on certain issues. But, whether we agree with them politically or not, we have a vital duty to hold our representatives up in prayer. And whether or not we agree with his policies, we all need to continue to pray for our President, and pray for God’s guidance and direction for him. Not only will his decisions affect us all, but he is – more simply – a human being for whom Christ died. After all, the ultimate battle is a spiritual one, and our greatest weapons are found on our knees.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” – Eph 6:12
Genetically modified foods have long concerned consumers from many backgrounds, primarily because people fear eating vegetables or grains that have had the genes of other organisms spliced into them. Besides the potential health issues, opponents have worried that GM plants will cross-pollinate with non-GM plants, contaminating local traditional and organic crops. Yet, GM crops are routinely grown across America, and few people even know when they are, in fact, eating food made from GM plants. In America, a judge has recently ruled that the environmental impact of GM sugar beets must be studied in more detail. The debate also continues in New South Wales, Australia, where volunteer GM canola plants have been found growing along the roads.
GM seed giant Monsanto has promoted its lines of seeds across America and the world, offering plant varieties that have been specially designed to resist weed killer. Rather than using natural breeding methods to develop these specialized plants, Monsanto researchers have spliced the plants’ genes and inserted foreign genetic information in order to get new plants with desirable qualities – like the ability to survive an onslaught of herbicides. Monsanto offers a wide variety of plants that are resistant to glyphosate herbicide, enabling commercial farmers to spray Roundup across their fields to kill weeds without worrying about destroying their crops. American farmers have found the Monsanto seeds handy, but traditional and organic farmers are fearful that the lab-created plants will infect their own crops.
Oregon, United States:
On September 21, US District Judge Jeffrey S. White in San Francisco ordered the US Department of Agriculture to more thoroughly investigate the environmental impact of Monsanto’s genetically modified sugar beets. Plaintiffs argued that the GM seeds might cross-pollinate with non-GM plants in other fields and contaminate them. Plaintiffs also argued that raising herbicide-resistant plants encourages farmers to add more weed killer to their fields, and therefore could promote the development of “super weeds” that would plague all farmers.
New South Wales, Australia:
The controversy has spread across the globe. In Australia, traditional farmers in New South Wales are worried that the genetically altered canola plants in the area will spread into non-GM crops. GM crops make up only about 2-3 percent of the canola production in Australia, yet volunteer GM plants have already started to sprout up along highways.
One farmer named Gai Marshall says she used 20 test kits to test the three-foot tall canola plants growing along a 20 km stretch of the Riverina Highway, and 19 of the plants she tested were genetically modified. These volunteer GM plants greatly concern farmers who want to keep their fields GM-free.
Maharashtra, India: In India, use of Monsanto’s seeds has led to crop failures and suicides. Indian farmers turned to the herbicide-resistant seeds to raise cotton, hoping to grow huge cash crops. The GM seeds, though, require significantly more water and pesticides than native crops, and farmers have either had to pay large amounts of money to keep their fields watered or else allow their crops to dry up. Crushed by debt and crop failure, thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide.
Africa:
African farmers have been largely unwilling to turn to GM plants. Researchers have urged farmers to continue using the native seed varieties, because traditional seeds are already drought and pest-resistant (which is why they’ve been used in those lands for generations). Genetic diversity among seeds is also important, and farmers are being urged to continue to save and trade seeds among themselves.
Israel: An Israeli crop-protection company Makhteshim-Agan is hoping to compete against GM seed giant Monsanto by producing seeds that are drought and pest resistant, but without adding new genetic material to seeds as Monsanto has done. Instead, Makhteshim-Agan is investing $37 million in the San Diego ag-tech startup Cibus Global, which has developed a Rapid Trait Development System. Cibus can breed plants to have certain desired characteristics in just a few years rather than centuries.
Despite all this fussing with seed genes, plenty of farmers across the world have been seeking out the old “mutts” of the seed populations. Heirloom seeds from the crops of yesteryear may not produce the biggest tomatoes or the reddest apples, but many consumers consider their produce the best tasting and healthiest. People with organic or backyard gardens have turned to heirloom seeds to grow the same varieties of carrots and onions and potatoes that their great grandparents grew a century ago, and because there are no intellectual rights connected with heirloom seeds (as there are with GM seeds), people with heirloom crops are free to save the new seeds from the crops to plant at the next season.
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
