Losing the Scent in South Lebanon

From Gloria-Centre.Org

Losing the Scent in South Lebanon
By Jonathan Spyer *
July 20, 2010

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

Last week, the IDF released evidence of Hizbullah stockpiling of weaponry in populated civilian areas of southern Lebanon. The IDF material showed an aerial map of the Shi’ite town of El Khiam. The map showed details of a developed military infrastructure woven into the fabric of the town’s civilian population.

While the precise details were new, the fact of Hizbullah’s use of civilian areas as bases for its military reconstruction after 2006 is by now no longer a major revelation.

The fact of this activity is not seriously in doubt. It is in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war. The mechanisms by which Hizbullah and its allies act to neutralize the 12,000 strong international force tasked with preventing the movement’s military activities in Lebanon’s south have also been in evidence over the last couple of weeks.

Tensions have been steadily rising between elements of the UNIFIL forces deployed in south Lebanon (specifically – the French contingent) and supporters of Hizbullah’s “resistance.” A number of incidents have taken place. On June 29, UNIFIL conducted a 36-hour deployment exercise.

In the days that followed, members of the French contingent were attacked in the village of Touline by a crowd which pelted them with rocks, sticks and eggs.

On Saturday, July 3, in the village of Kabrikha, a gathering of around 100 civilians blocked the road, preventing a French UNIFIL patrol from entering the village. The soldiers were reportedly disarmed, and a number were injured. The Lebanese army eventually intervened to separate the crowd from the patrol. Villagers interviewed after the incidents claimed that UNIFIL troops had tried to enter homes – a claim which a spokesman for the UN forces denied.

Michael Williams, UN special coordinator for Lebanon, meanwhile, described the incidents as “clearly organized.”

Williams was correct. Mobs of 100 civilians do not suddenly appear by accident in southern Lebanon. It is not an area known for its liberal attitudes toward freedom of political association. In the Shi’ite villages of the area, the only force able to march, demonstrate and make its presence felt is the “resistance” – that is Hizbullah – and its allies.

Sure enough, as UNIFIL commander Alberto Asarta Cuevas sought assurances in the days that followed, Hizbullah leaders issued a number of statements expressing puzzlement at UNIFIL’s recent increase in activity. The movement’s deputy chief Naim Qassem laconically advised UNIFIL to “watch what it does.” Hussein Haj Hassan, a movement member who serves as minister of agriculture in the current Lebanese government, described UNIFIL’s behavior as “incomprehensible.” “One wonders what they want,” he added.

In the Lebanese manner, a rumor then began to do the rounds that the UNIFIL deployment exercise was in fact a trial run of a move whereby international forces moved to prevent rocket fire on Israel. A Hizbullah-associated MP, Muhammad Raad, said that that if a particular country affiliated with UNIFIL wanted to “give the Israelis a card,” it should not seek to do so at the expense of southern Lebanon. It was unacceptable, said Raad, that “some UNIFIL units” might be taking orders from their own minister of defense, rather than from the UN.

In reality, Israeli commanders could only dream of such activity being undertaken by the UN force. But such an interpretation has the unmistakable quality of a further warning to the international forces not to overstep the recognized rules of the game between them and Hizbullah. Hizbullah expects a “live and let live” attitude both from the international forces and from the Lebanese army regarding its military activities and preparations in the south.

FOLLOWING A series of consultations with the Lebanese government and armed forces, UNIFIL commander Asarta this week issued a contrite statement, apologizing to the residents of the south for the inconvenience to them caused by his force’s activities. He expressed his “love” for Lebanon. It was later announced that henceforth, UNIFIL would no longer use sniffer dogs in patrols (a point which had reportedly particularly annoyed the villagers). Also, it was reiterated that UNIFIL would not enter houses and yards in populated areas, except with prior coordination and the involvement of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Given that the UNIFIL activity that prompted the actions and statements by Hizbullah did not differ in a major way from previous practices, a number of theories have been raised as to why the “resistance” chose to draw attention to it in the way that it did.

In an interview with the Lebanese An-Nahar newspaper, Samir Geagea, leader of the Lebanese Forces movement, speculated that the decision to move against the French UNIFIL contingent related to anger at France’s decision to vote in favor of further sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. According to such an interpretation, the latest events would be by way of a friendly reminder to the French of the vulnerability of their troops in southern Lebanon.

Geagea also noted French support for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. This is the body charged with investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The latest reports suggest that the tribunal is soon to issue indictments. Hizbullah is now considered to be the main suspect in the killing. But whatever the precise reasons for Hizbullah’s latest move against the French element in UNIFIL, the recent events once more demonstrate the relative helplessness of the UN force.

The photos released by the IDF last week may have reassured Israelis by demonstrating the extent of its “coverage” of southern Lebanon. But they also showed the degree to which Hizbullah has been able to rebuild and rearm undisturbed south of the Litani since 2006. Some 160 Shi’ite villages have been turned into armed camps similar to El Khiam, we are told. All of this has taken place under the sensitive noses of the (now demobilized) UNIFIL sniffer dogs. The dogs, or someone else, have also apparently chewed up and digested UN Resolution 1701.

*

Dr. Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel

Subscribe to the comments for this post

3 Articles; How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study: UK PM in Turkey; Andrew Sullivan Attacks Me Without Bothering to Consider What I Wrote; Rock Band Symbollizes View that Syrian Dictatorship is Preferable to Israeli Democracy

From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com

• How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study: UK PM in Turkey
• Andrew Sullivan Attacks Me Without Bothering to Consider What I Wrote
• Rock Band Symbollizes View that Syrian Dictatorship is Preferable to Israeli Democracy
How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study: UK PM in Turkey
Posted: 28 Jul 2010 02:42 PM PDT
Please be subscriber 16,983. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

Note: This article was published in PajamasMedia. If you reprint please use my title but link and give credit to them. For my response to Andrew Sullivan’s dishonest attack on the article see here.

By Barry Rubin

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.

It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.

Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you, here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.

Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate or your help.

What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?

In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won’t be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.

Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron’s pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime’s subversion of Turkish democracy.

Cameron began by saying:

“I’ve come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.”

Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: “I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries.” In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn’t need Britain at all.

And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West’s radical Islamist enemies.
And here it is again:

“People ask me why [I’m visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I’ll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy.” So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.

According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:

“Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms – whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey’s unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security.”

Look, you don’t go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don’t tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that’s true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its “Eastern” enemies—as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000—or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.

He continues:

“Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?”

Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds:

“Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can’t hope to have. So I’ve come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.”

Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime’s behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year’s elections:

Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!

Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime’s behavior. He could have said:

While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if…. Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.

But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain’s closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:

“The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.”

All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!

He also complains of those who “see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don’t get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both.”

But he doesn’t comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk.

If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic.

Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:

“Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

“Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

“But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.”

In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas’s behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime’s pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron’s part.

And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn’t Cameron know this?

I don’t want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there’s no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime’s manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents.

He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:

“Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey’s help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.

“We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see Iran move in the right direction.”

That meeting is a conference of Iran’s supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey’s opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar’s worldview: “We need Turkey’s help….” Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help?

This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran.

Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That’s how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.

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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Andrew Sullivan Attacks Me Without Bothering to Consider What I Wrote
Posted: 29 Jul 2010 12:30 AM PDT
Please be subscriber 16,983. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

One of the amazing things about the intellectual scene today is that people attack you without any reference to what you actually say. It is as if you were talking to someone deaf who has his hearing aid turned off. You want to explain that there must be a misunderstanding only to find that the person doesn’t care: he just wants to scream insults at you so that nobody actually considers whether you are making an accurate point.

When I was growing up, someone considered your actual arguments and responded to them with rational arguments of their own. Some of us still do that. I wrote a serious and sober analysis of what was wrong with the UK prime minister’s speech in Turkey, focusing on the basic misunderstanding of proper diplomatic leverage.

Instead, Andrew Sullivan writes:

“Barry Rubin joins the chorus from the neocon right claiming that `Turkey is on the enemy side.’”

Let’s consider this sentence. First, rather than argue the facts he merely throws in two words intended to get people to demonize me and not listen to anything I say: neocon right. Hey, nothing more need be said! But the central question should be whether the original statement was true or not, right?

Then there’s that word “joins.” I’ve been studying Turkey now for 35 years. I’ve been there about 25 times. Regarding the direction of the regime, I’ve been saying the same thing for about two years, long before there was a collapse of Turkish-Israel relations.

If I’ve joined anyone it’s the Turkish socialists and liberals. Here’s one of many examples: a Turkish woman from the left who angrily told me, “We’ve been warning the West about these people for years and the West just won’t listen.”

In fact, though, I think I was the first person to say that the Turkish regime (NOT Turkey) has gone over to the other side. I have written literally dozens of articles proving it. I have quoted Iran’s leader and Syria’s government as having publicly stated it. Might Sullivan want to consult the evidence I have compiled? Of course not.

And then he makes a remarkably revealing illogical argument:

“It was once a given on the right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential in defusing Islamism and winning the war on terror. But once Turkey took on Israel, that ended, because the war many neocons are waging is for Israel, right or wrong, not the West at large.”

This has an implication of antisemitism, doesn’t it? He’s saying that people are only angry at Turkey’s rulers because they have fallen out with Israel, referring mainly to the flotilla issue. This makes me think of the argument in the 1930s that people were only critical of Germany because they were Jews or only cared about Jewish interests.

Yes, it has been a given on both left, center, and right that keeping Turkey close to the West was essential. Yet what if the Turkish regime is no longer close to the West? Everyone’s opinion is still the same, it’s the situation that’s changed. To ignore that change is incredibly dangerous. Indeed, I’d say that Turkey’s change of sides (perhaps temporary) is the biggest defeat suffered by the West in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution.

So how to keep Turkey close to the West? Act to constrain the current regime and, in appropriate ways of course, to help the opposition win the elections a year from now. Cheering the current regime, letting it claim that the West accepts its policies, assists that increasingly dictatorial government to remain in power.

And if it does fall as I hope? Oh, dear! Then Turkey would have a socialist prime minister instead of a right-wing Islamist one. Seems to me that’s what Western liberals and the left should prefer.

As for the claim that it’s all about Israel, in fact, I have been talking for months about:

–Internal repression in Turkey, including the arrests of hundreds of peaceful dissidents on charges of attempting to overthrow the government with violence. Turks have been writing eloquently about this issue.

–The regime’s campaign to bring the media and court system under government control. The regime and its supporters have bought up much of the media and intimidated the rest. It is now proposing constitutional changes to cripple the judiciary. People in Turkey are scared. Many say they no longer recognize their country.

–Turkish regime support for Iran and its nuclear weapons’ program. This now includes cutting a separate deal with Tehran against U.S. wishes and voting against sanctions. The prime minister has stated that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, therefore calling President Obama a liar.

–Close Turkish cooperation with Syria. The regime does not have a “pro-Arab” policy (ask the Egyptian, Jordan, or Saudi governments in private), it has a pro-Arabic-speaking Islamists policy.

–The regime’s engagement with Hamas and Hizballah and support for these two revolutionary Islamist groups. As I have pointed out, the regime does NOT support the “Palestinian people” but merely Hamas, a fellow Islamist party.

Much of my material has come from the Turkish opposition, mainly Kemalist secularists and democratic socialists.

Yet none of this matters, right? It’s only all about Israel, we are supposed to believe, and talking about everything else is just an excuse!

Sullivan has, however, taught me something important: why such people must keep harping on Israel. Forget about the canary in the coal mine analogy. The Israel card’s use is to make people blind, to shut them up, to throw out every other issue and piece of evidence.

They hope that anti-Israel passion (plus dark hints of a Jewish conspiracy) will keep people from actually looking at what’s happening. In the phrase of Professor Richard Landes, Israel is a weapon of mass destruction. And the Jews have filled this function many times before in history.

On top of this, my article’s theme and tone are quite different from his claims. Here are the key sentences from my article:

“Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country. What should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you; here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

“Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests….

“Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime’s behavior. He could have said:

“While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if…. Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.”

Does that sound like a call for war?

Mr. Sullivan: There is something in diplomacy between war and appeasement. It is called carrots and sticks, costs and benefits, quid pro quo. Cameron’s speech was a mess because he abandoned that principle and resorted only to simple-minded flattery. Middle Eastern peoples–Muslim or otherwise–know what that signals: weakness, which invites ridicule and aggressiveness.

Sullivan also ignores my point–which I think is rather significant–that Cameron foolishly insulted France and Germany by strongly implying that the only reason they oppose Turkey’s EU membership is because they are bigots. If Sullivan had been Britain’s prime minister I guess he would have called them “neocon rightists.”

If Cameron had not mentioned Israel at all I would have written precisely the same article on all these points.

Sullivan continued:

“Keep it up, prime minister. Advance the interests of Britain, and resist the war of civilizations the far right wants to gin up. We will only defeat Islamism if we keep an open hand stretched to Islam. Isolating and demonizing Turkey’s evolution as a regional Muslim power – prepared to be Israel’s ally if Israel stops the persecution and colonization of the Palestinans – is about as dumb a geo-strategic move as one could imagine.”

The issue is not a “war of civilizations” but a war of ideologies. Is Sullivan really so dense that he doesn’t understand that the people most similar to him in Turkey hate and fear the current regime? Doesn’t Sullivan understand that the governments of most Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East don’t want the West to support the Islamists?

(Here’s a list: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. And even the Palestinian Authority and the democratic forces in Lebanon. These are almost all Muslims, too, aren’t they? And then let’s add the majority of Muslims in Turkey and in Iran as well!)

Turkey is not evolving into being a regional Muslim power as some kind of national project. This is in fact the policy of one party in Turkey which has less than 30 percent support according to recent public opinion polls, with probably twice as many Turks favoring non-Islamist opposition parties.

And what does deifying the current Turkish government have to do with keeping an “open hand stretched to Islam”? Almost all Turks are Muslims, they just aren’t political Islamists. That’s why the West gets along with Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia, for example, who are all Muslims but not on the side of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.

It was a Socialist leader who once said that antisemitism was the socialism of fools. Today, the insane use of Israel as the cause of all issues and problems is the tool used to make fools on the left support the most reactionary forces on the Middle Eastern extreme right. And then, to make it laughable, they do so in the name of fighting evil rightists!

Incidentally, don’t think I didn’t notice Sullivan’s sleazy little trick: he didn’t link to my article so those reading his blog item could easily check out what I actually said rather than what he claimed. That’s the kind of behavior that tells a great deal about Sullivan’s intellectual dishonesty.

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). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Rock Band Symbollizes View that Syrian Dictatorship is Preferable to Israeli Democracy
Posted: 28 Jul 2010 01:18 PM PDT
By Barry Rubin

My daughter will gladly tell you that I don’t know a huge amount about contemporary music, though she was impressed that I knew who Kurt Cobain was. Yet you don’t have to know about this specific band to realize what a perfect example this story is of contemporary thinking.

Gorillaz, a major British band, cancelled its concert in Israel during June and then played in Syria during July. “For us it’s just a wonderful experience,” said one member, Damon Albarn. Their theme was pollution, he explained: “I think the world is becoming like a plastic beach. It’s not a prediction, it’s something that exists now. We’ve got to accept that it’s got to be cool to recycle.”

Syria, of course, is a dictatorship where dissidents are arrested and tortured, where no freedom of speech or assembly exists, where Kurds are massacred. The regime killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians in its own city of Hama in 1982. Syria supports terrorist groups attacking in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and for many years Turkey. Syria has imposed an imperialist yoke on Lebanon, a country that never threatened it. Its media feature the most vicious anti-Western and antisemitic propaganda. You can read more about this in my book, The Truth About Syria.

Yet Syria and its support for murderous guerrillas is regarded by these gorillas of Gorillaz as superior to democratic Israel. Indeed, Israel even has a better recycling program than Syria, a regime whose main act of recycling has been with Stalinist and fascist principles and institutions.

What better symbol of the topsy-turvy nature of Western values and thinking nowadays.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Invade not the right of the fatherless; The fatherless are taken under God’s special protection; He is their Redeemer, their Goel, their near Kinsman, that will take their part and stand up for them with jealousy, as taking Himself affronted in the injuries done to them.

Proverbs 23:10-11
10 Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless: 11 For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee.

Note, 1. The fatherless are taken under God’s special protection; with him they not only find mercy shown to them (Hos. 14:3) but justice done for them. He is their Redeemer, their Goël, their near kinsman, that will take their part and stand up for them with jealousy, as taking himself affronted in the injuries done to them. As their Redeemer he will plead their cause against those that do them any injury, and, one way or other, will not only defend their right, and recover it for them, but avenge the wrongs done to them. And he is mighty, almighty; his omnipotence is engaged and employed for their protection, and their proudest and most powerful oppressors will not only find themselves an unequal match for this, but will find that it is at their peril to contend with it.

2. Every man therefore must be careful not to injure them in any thing, or to invade their rights, either by a clandestine removal of the old land-marks or by a forcible entry into their fields. Being fatherless, they have none to redress their wrongs, and, being in their childhood, they do not so much as apprehend the wrong that is done them. Sense of honour, and much more the fear of God, would restrain men from offering injury to children, especially fatherless children.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Parental Duties: A Parent instructing his child; A Parent correcting his child; A Parent encouraging his child

Parental Duties.
________________________________________
Proverbs 23:12-16
12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. 13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. 14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. 15 My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine. 16 Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.

Here is, 1. A parent instructing his child. He is here brought in persuading him to give his mind to his book, and especially to the scriptures and his catechism, to attend to the words of knowledge, by which he might come to know his duty, and danger, and interest, and not to think it enough to give them the hearing, but to apply his heart to them, to delight in them, and bow his will to the authority of them. The heart is then applied to the instruction when the instruction is applied to the heart.

2. A parent correcting his child. A tender parent can scarcely find in his heart to do this; it goes much against the grain. But he finds it is necessary; it is his duty, and therefore he dares not withhold correction when there is occasion for it (spare the rod and spoil the child); he beats him with the rod, gives him a gentle correction, the stripes of the sons of men, not such as we give to beasts. Beat him with the rod and he shall not die. The rod will not kill him; nay, it will prevent his killing himself by those vicious courses which the rod will be necessary to restrain him from. For the present it is not joyous, but grievous, both to the parent and to the child; but when it is given with wisdom, designed for good, accompanied with prayer, and blessed of God, it may prove a happy means of preventing his utter destruction and delivering his soul from hell. Our great care must be about our children’s souls; we must not see them in danger of hell without using all possible means, with the utmost care and concern, to snatch them as brands out of everlasting burnings. Let the body smart, so that the spirit be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

3. A parent encouraging his child, telling him,

(1.) What was all he expected, nothing but what would be for his own good, that his heart be wise and that his lips speak right things, that he be under the government of good principles, and that by those principles he particularly maintain a good environment of his tongue. It is to be hoped that those will do right things when they grow up who learn to speak right things when they are young, and dare not speak any bad words.

(2.) What a comfort it would be to him if herein he answered his expectation: “If thy heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, shall rejoice in thee, even mine, who have taken so much care and pains about thee, my heart, that has many a time ached for thee, for which thou shouldst study thus to make a grateful requital.” Note, The wisdom of children will be the joy of their parents and teachers, who have no greater joy than to see them walk in the truth, 3 John 4. “Children, if you be wise and good, devout and conscientious, God will be pleased with you, and that will be our joy: we shall think our labour in instructing you well bestowed; it will be a comfortable answer for the many prayers we have put up for you; we shall be eased of a great deal of care, shall not need to be so strict and severe in watching over you, and shall consequently be the easier both to you and to ourselves. We shall rejoice in hope that you will be a credit and comfort to us, if we should live to be old, that you will bear up the name of Christ in your generation, that you will live comfortably in this world and happily in another.”
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Consider Him

Isaiah 9:6
His name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Psalm 33:11
The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

We are filled with perplexity, the universe is a riddle, we walk in a maze. We are at our wit’s end. Wise men and philosophers cannot answer our anxious questions about the mystery of life; none can solve the problems of triumphant evil and thwarted goodness, of pain and sorrow and loss and death. And again we look, and lo! We discover that in Him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” Col. 2:3]. He answers our questions. He solves our riddles. We rest in Him as our “Counsellor.”

Again, we are oppressed with our utter littleness and weakness. We feel as helpless as an insect in the presence of the giant forces of the material universe. We are powerless to resist the vast world movements of men, the strikes, the conspiracies, the huge combinations, the wars, the political and social upheavals. And in our horror and despair we look again, and lo! We see Him in the earthquake and tempest, “towering o’er the wrecks of time,’ stilling the storm, raising the dead, calming the fierce, wild passions of men, and slowly but surely enlightening and moulding the nations; and we cry out, “The Mighty God!”

Again, we are bereft and lonely and heart-sore. We cry like an orphaned child in the night, and there is none to help, and no one understands. Then He draws nigh with infinite comprehension of our heartache and weariness and pain and with fathomless consolations He folds us in the embrace of His love; and we pillow our heads on His bosom, and nestle close and whisper. “ The Everlasting Father! The Prince of Peace!” – S.L. Brengle.

He calms the strife of the warring will,
He softens the hardest breast;
He speaketh peace to the troubled soul,
And giveth the weary rest.
He feeds the hungry with bread from heaven,
And then in the thirsty strife,
He cleaves the rock in the desert way,
And sends the water of life.

Many voices have offered me a home for my quiet hours. Thou alone hast promised me a covert in my storm. – George Matheson. – The Christians Daily Meditation – E.F. & L. Harvey

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Posture in Prayer

Ephesians 3:14
I bow my knees.

One of the main ways to discover a Christian’s deepest concerns is to eavesdrop when he is praying; because if you can overhear a Christian at prayer, you know what concerns him most. Now that is certainly true of this prayer of the apostle Paul.

In chapter 2 he has expounded what God has done in Christ; how He has ended the terrible alienation, and is creating this new society, this redeemed and reconciled community. Now he follows his exposition with a prayer that this wonderful plan of God will be completely fulfilled in their experience.

Glance first at the introduction to the prayer: ‘I bow my knees…’ The normal posture for prayer among the Jews was standing. In Christ’s parable of the Pharisee and the publican, both men stood to pray. So kneeling was unusual; it indicated an unusual degree of earnestness, as when Jesus knelt in the garden of Gethsemane, and fell on His face to the ground, prostrating Himself before His Father.

That’s what Paul was doing now. He bowed His knees; he prostrated himself before God, so intense was his longing about what he was going to pray for.

Scripture lays down no rule about the posture that we should adopt in prayer: it is possible to pray kneeling, or standing, or sitting, or walking, or lying. But I agree with Henriksen that ‘the slouching position of the body while one is supposed to be praying is an abomination to the Lord.’

Paul goes on to say, ‘I bow my knees to the Father.’ He has been talking about the family, the one family of brothers and sister; and now he bows his knees to the Father, of whose family Jews and Gentiles are equal members. It is natural that he should do this; it is to the Father that he prays; to whom he bows his knees. – John R.W. Stott: God’s New Society [ii], 1975.
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Let supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men…

From KHouse.Org

**MEMORY VERSE OF THE WEEK**

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. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1 Timothy 2:1-3 KJV

Subscribe to the comments for this post

**Important News Headlines** – 28th July 2010

**IMPORTANT NEWS HEADLINES**

Olympia Food Co-op Is Boycotting Israeli Products And Tutu Agrees – July 28, 2010
South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu said on Wednesday that he supports the Olympia Food Co-op’s boycott of Israeli products. The Olympia Food Co-op, located in Olympia, Washington, announced last week that no Israeli products would be sold at its two grocery stores in the city. Haaretz

Christian Graduate Counseling Student Expelled for Opposition to Homosexuality – July 28, 2010
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views. “Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.” Fox News

Judge Puts Damper on AZ Law – July 28, 2010
A federal judge stepped into the fight over Arizona’s immigration law at the last minute Wednesday, blocking the heart of the measure and defusing a confrontation between police and thousands of activists that had been building for months. Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling isn’t the end. It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court — ensuring that a law that reignited the immigration debate, inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight. AP

Boy Scout Jamboree This Year Celebrates 100th Anniversary – July 28, 2010
Franks said Fort A.P. Hill becomes a city of 90,000 people every four years when the jamboree is held there. Scouts from throughout the world participate in hundreds of activities like scuba diving, camping, shooting and other outdoor activities associated with scouting. Scouts have the opportunity to work toward any badge offered by the organization including alpine skiing, Franks said. “This year is to celebrate the 100th anniversary of scouting,” Franks said. “Traditionally, the jamboree is a way of bringing scouts across the country together to share in scouting skills and share in the fellowship of scouting.” The Daily Reflector

Ahmadinejad Ready to Negotiate – July 27, 2010
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad abandoned preconditions for talks over Iran’s nuclear program late Monday, saying talks would start in early September regardless of the conditions he had set. Ahmadinejad last month gave conditions for talks with the UN Security Council and Germany including their stance on Israel’s nuclear program and Iran. Ahmedinajad told state TV late Monday, however, that Iran would “follow negotiations” whether or not the conditions are met. The Jerusalem Post

Obama Chooses The View Over the Boy Scouts – July 26, 2010
President Barack Obama, the honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, will not speak in-person before the group on Wednesday at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, as part of the organization’s 100th anniversary celebration. However, the president is sending a videotaped message to the scouts for Wednesday, the same day he will be in Manhattan to tape an appearance for ABC TV’s talk show “The View.” CNS News

Subscribe to the comments for this post

From the Beach in California… or Arizona

From KHouse.Org

FROM THE BEACH IN CALIFORNIA … OR ARIZONA

We spoke by phone to a far-away friend about how things were going, on “in California” where there is a lot of sand. This is the conversation that followed:

Friend: “Well, every time I go to ‘the beach’ here ‘in California’ things are different. This time I am very very bored. Last time I was here I was ‘surfing’ all the time. Now I’m not.”

Us: “Why aren’t you ‘surfing’? Aren’t there any ‘waves’?”

Friend: “Oh yes. There are a lot of ‘waves’. There are some very big ‘waves’ and they keep getting bigger every day. But, I can’t ‘surf’ any of the ‘waves.’”

Us: “Why can’t you go ‘surfing’?”

Friend: “‘Well, the ‘guy who runs the beach’ says we can’t ‘surf’. He says there aren’t any ‘waves’. In fact, some people said, ‘Yes there are waves,’ and leaked it to the press that there were ‘waves’ and they were very seriously told not to do that any more. You can get in trouble for saying there are ‘waves.’”

Us: “So, in the meanwhile, the ‘waves’ are just getting bigger?”

Friend: “Yep. They keep getting bigger, and they are killing people, adults and little children. But, the ‘guy who runs the beach’ says there aren’t any ‘waves’ and we’re not allowed to ‘surf’. So, I’m just sitting here ‘waxing my surfboard’. Actually, my ‘surfboard is waxed’. Now I’m building a house. For real. I really am building a house.”

Us: “You’re building a house? Why are you building a house?”

Friend: “For the other ‘surfers.’”

Us: “But, why? If you’re not ‘surfing’ why bring in other ‘surfers’?”

Friend: “See, we have to have ‘surfers’ here, because this is a ‘beach’ and a ‘beach’ has to have ‘surfers’.”

Us: “But, will they be allowed to ‘surf’?”

Friend: “No. Do you know why I am actually building this house? Because I have to be able to report what I’m doing, and I have to be doing something, so I am building a house that isn’t necessary.”

Us: “And in the meanwhile you are on a ‘beach’ with huge ‘waves’ getting bigger all the time, and nobody is allowed to ‘surf’ them, and so destruction is on the way. That’s ‘anti-Californian.’”

Friend: “It’s anti-American is what it is.”

Us: “Wow. Can we write about this?”

Friend (Laughing) “Only if you use the waves analogy. And say it’s … a beach on the ocean in Arizona or something.”

Just a little inside note from a friend far away…. on a beach… in Arizona.

Although, I hear that surfing is much better in Afghanistan.

We need to get on our knees for America. And start with our own repentance.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Suffering continues in Darfur

From KHouse.Org

SUFFERING CONTINUES IN DARFUR

For an estimated three million Darfur villagers, it’s been seven long years of bombs dropped by (old Russian ex-military planes) camel-back raids, displacement, rape, and being robbed of humanitarian aid. For refugees unable to leave the region, it’s been as many as seven years in makeshift homes without basic utilities like clean water or electricity, public schools, jobs, markets, doctors’ offices or hospitals. And for the orphaned, it’s been as many as seven years without parents to provide or care for them.

In 2004, George W. Bush declared Sudan’s National Congress Party’s military-backed burning, bombing, and raiding of Darfur region villages a “genocide”. Though many people recognized that the incessant pillaging of the Masalit, Fur, and Zaghawa villages equalled the systematic destruction of Sudan’s black Christians and animists, the UN and the International Criminal Court have not seen fit, until this July, to indict Bashir with genocide for the initial attacks that took place years ago. The fallout amounts to a virtual lost generation of uneducated, voiceless, landless, and orphaned.

This past March, just when the beleaguered folks living in displacement had an offer of democratic election dangled before them, it was whisked away. Voters were excluded or dissuaded by violence, a much-disputed 2008 national census, and by the ballot-box-stuffing of Khartoum insiders. It was a reign in which the Janjaweed militia targeted and torched specific villages, slaughtered inhabitants, and pursued the survivors into the nether regions simply for belonging to ethnic groups suspected of sympathy with rebels. Omar al-Bashir has been the head of state who mandated, commissioned, supplied, and gave his blessing to it all. And in April of 2010, his displaced and ravaged and orphaned voters supposedly re-elected him – an accused genocidal maniac – to an eight-year term as their first democratically chosen leader in 20 years.

Yes, April saw Sudan’s first multi-party election in 20 years. The campaign months of March and April saw the voting populace and activists intimidated, beaten, subjected to false arrest, held prisoner, or threatened with sexual assault – at the hands of Sudan’s security forces. Omar al-Bashir, backed by his National Congress Party (built upon what was the National Islamic Front Party) won, and though the international community admitted that the election was skewed, there seems to have been little other public outcry in defense of his “constituents.”

Al-Bashir’s ruling party assures outsiders that the tribes have always fought amongst themselves, and that his government is not to blame. Some accounts, such as that given by Roger Winter of the US Agency for International Development, indicate that the violence is indeed coming from the capital of Khartoum and the Arab-Muslim government of Bashir.

So far, peace agreements that Bashir has signed, such as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005, have been nothing more than empty promises meant for show or appeasement, since conditions haven’t really changed anything in Darfur.

The International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have called for officials in the neighboring country of Chad, which is an ICC signatory, to arrest and turn Bashir over to the court for trial. Sudan signed a peace treaty this year with Chad, and Bashir is known to be hosting him this month for the Community of Sahel-Saharan States conference on July 22nd. The government of Chad refused to detain Bashir, saying that it would be wrong to invite Omar al-Bashir into their country and then arrest him. Chad’s government prefers to let Bashir rest in the hands of the African Union, which has a track record of repeatedly brushing off opportunities for Bashir’s arrest. So much for the international community’s ability to mete out justice.

While the news has quieted about Darfur in recent years, the trauma has not gone away. We need to consider our brothers and sisters in danger as though we were in danger ourselves and remember Sudan in prayer.

Related Links:
• Human Rights Groups Call on President Obama to Respond to ICC Arrest Warrant for Sudanese President – Save Darfur
• In Wake Of Rigged Election… – Save Darfur
• Sudan’s 2010 Elections – Save Darfur
• Chad Declines to Arrest Visiting President of Sudan Omar Al-Bashir – Voice Of America

Subscribe to the comments for this post