RubinReports

New York Times: No Islamist "Terror," No Arab "Terror," just "Jewish Terror" Posted: 14 Sep 2009 09:03 AM PDT Many newspapers and wire services, thinking that terrorism is just a state of mind, have style policies not to use that word. Some only use that word if their own country is attacked; others never use it. And so, it is quite revealing that when, for the first time in a long time, the New York Times uses the word, it fits with the broader theme and even ideology that seems to govern the paper nowadays. In an article on Jewish settlers on the West Bank--you can imagine every word of the article before reading it--we find the following: "Jewish terror is not new. A religious student assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, and a settler, Baruch Goldstein...." Now of course these were acts of terrorism. But so have been the thousands of acts of terrorism perpetrated by Fatah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel as well as against Western and Third World countries over the years. I'll bet that this was not a deliberate and conscious action from the top to say that the only terrorists are Jews. The writer and editors just didnt' think about it. But that's the point, isn't it? It reveals a huge amount of who the newspaper defines as good and bad guys, plus the fact that it and some others do far too much of that to remain credible and observe what used to be considered professional standards. 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: http://www.gloria-center.org/. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

A New Arab Strategy: Israel Gives Up Everything, and Then Maybe Gets Something in Exchange Posted: 13 Sep 2009 01:05 PM PDT By Barry Rubin There’s been an important new development in Arab strategy toward Israel. Although it was implicit in the Saudi, later Arab, peace proposal it has now become explicit, as in the Turki al-Faisal New York Times op-ed. The position is this: First, Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in the 1967 war, meaning east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. In addition, it must allow all Palestinians who lived or had any ancestor who lived in what is now Israel come and live in Israel without restriction if they want to do so. Then, Arab states will negotiate about making peace and giving diplomatic recognition. The Palestinian Authority's leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and Syria have taken stances along similar lines. This can be summarized as: First land, then peace. If such an intiative would be taken by any country on any other issue in the world, observers would ridicule such an absurd position. It is, of course, absurd and contrary to UN Resolutions 242 and 338 as well as all the Israel-Palestinian agreements including the Oslo accord of 1993. All of these put obligations on both sides to be implemented simultaneously. No Israeli government would ever agree to such an absurd notion that it gives up all the cards in the hope of then getting something in exchange. In short, it is a formula for killing the peace process. The problem is that Western leaders, diplomats, experts, and media don’t seem to see this alteration and its significance. Along with the increasing talk of a “one-state solution” or just wiping Israel off the map, it is one more signal that we are going back to the 1960s, with peace an increasingly distant dream. Far from showing that Israel needs peace-at-any-price as-soon-as-possible, it shows that the status quo is superior to what’s being offered. It also shows the increasing absurdity of the idea that Israel is at fault for the lack of peace agreements. Note also--something else nobody is going to notice--that the op-ed insults the United States as it directly contradicts Obama's current initiative to get something from the Arab states to match an Israeli construction freeze. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it disproves the two main theories regarding this issue. First, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the more Israel gives, the more the other side demands and dismisses all previous Israeli concessions. Second, the more the United States moves away from Israel and criticizes it, the more the Arab and Palestinian position harden. Is anyone in the mass media--a single reporter or editorial?--or in political authority going to notice any of this? 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: http://www.gloria-center.org/ To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

An Introductory Guide To A Very Big Mistake: Analyzing the U.S. Decision to Negotiate with Iran’s Regime Posted: 14 Sep 2009 08:53 AM PDT By Barry Rubin Forgive me for a bit of repetition but what has just happened is so important that it deserves the closest attention and clearest analysis. A more comprehensive explanation is here. This article presents these themes in a brief, straightforward manner. 1. President Barack Obama produced the theme of U.S. engagement with Iran and proposed a world free of all nuclear weapons as a goal. 2. The United States had tried to engage with Iran but that country refused. Nominally this can be attributed to being busy with stealing an election and repressing the opposition but it would have happened any way. 3. Iran is now governed by its most radical government since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini twenty years ago. Extremist and adventurist, anti-American and antisemitic, this is a government bent on getting nuclear weapons (at least as leverage, not necessarily to use), destroying U.S. influence in the region, and wiping Israel off the map. 4. Seeing that engagement wasn’t working, the U.S. government made a plan to bring together key countries and raise the level of sanctions in late September, just two weeks from the time the Iranian letter was received. The key G20 meeting was set for September 24-25. 5. Seeking to stall such measures in order to consolidate the regime, which is relatively weak given domestic opposition, the Tehran regime at the last minute sent an insulting note to the United States trying to change the subject. Rather than focus on the nuclear weapons’ drive, they called for changing the UN to empower non-Western states (an old regime theme) and rid the world of all nuclear weapons. In other words: Iran will be the champion of the Third World in getting rid of great power vetoes at the UN and keep on developing nuclear weapons until the United States gets rid of all those it has. 6. Remarkably, Obama accepted the Iranian offer. 7. Since the U.S. proposal was for unconditional negotiations this means that it cannot ask Iran to do anything—reduce sponsorship of terrorism, decrease internal repression, slow its nuclear program—as long as the talks are going on. 8. Apparently, the United States is not going to pursue the plan for increasing sanctions while the talks go on. 9. The U.S. government is also not setting a deadline for progress. 10. This means: By sending a five-page insulting letter the Iranian government has derailed the sanctions’ project and will gain in prestige without any cost. 11. In addition, the Iranian regime suffers no cost for stealing the election, repressing the opposition, and appointing a wanted terrorist as defense minister. One might expect international outrage and isolation of Iran on those points alone. Here, too, the regime has won a total victory. 12. The cover story is: The U.S. government offered to engage so it must keep its word. Supposedly, various factors will be impressed by this effort and be more willing to support sanctions after talks fail. 13. Yet it is never explained who these parties are? France, Germany, Britain, and other European states are ready to support sanctions increases now. Russia and China oppose raising sanctions now and will continue to do so. Even American domestic opinion doesn’t need this: if Obama, who is wildly popular on the left and seems to own much of the media, wants to raise sanctions what significant forces would oppose it? 14. In short, engagement has no purpose in terms of gathering support for sanctions. 15. What is really going on? --The Administration simply wants an excuse for doing nothing. --It really believes talks with Iran might lead somewhere, though some high officials, notably Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, say they won’t work. --Seeing that the sanctions effort cannot get unanimous support, it does not want a messy fight with Russia and China or the appearance of failure. 16. The policy can be defended by saying that talking doesn’t hurt. 17. But of course it does. Not only has Iran reversed the direction of events, sabotaged the sanctions, and escape any censure over the regime’s policies, it gains time to build nuclear weapons. Presumably, talks will eat up at least six months after which additional time would be needed to increase sanctions. By then, too, the Chinese project to double Iran’s capability to produce its own refined oil products—one of the main things sanctions would deny the country—will be completed. 18. If the United States had turned down the Iranian offer, the West Europeans would have done so also. 19. It is impossible to see how this decision does the United States any good and it does America, Europe, and the Middle East a great deal of harm. 20. Will the Obama Administration itself derive political benefits at home? Short-term, perhaps but not significant. But what about when crises take place or its policies are perceived as failures as Iran not only gets nuclear weapons but uses them to extend its influence; intimidate Western and regional opponents; and subvert neighbors? Conclusion: This is the most important foreign policy decision made so far by the Obama Administration. It is a very bad one. Even in the context of its overall policy, it would have done far better to continue with the raised sanctions. --By letting its own strategy be derailed it looks ineffective. --By accepting an insulting proposal obviously meant to change the agenda it will be perceived as being humiliated. --By ignoring the recent behavior of the Iranian regime it will invite more of the same. --By letting Russia and China veto a U.S. policy it seems to have abandoned American leadership in the world, or at least of the West. --By allowing the Iranian regime to stall for time it has apparently moved a long way toward acceding to Iran’s having nuclear weapons, and not just the weapons but weapons in the hands of the country’s most extreme faction. A big price will be paid in future for this mistake. [I wonder if the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, or other major news outlets will publish anything presenting the above points. The NY Time has already informed us that only "conservatives" and "human rights' activists" will oppose it, thus in a sense ruling out any serious criticism beforehand--since the first group is deemed evil and the second well-meaning but naive.] 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: http://www.gloria-center.org/ To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.