20 November 2019 - 23 Heshvan 5780 - כ"ג חשון ה' אלפים תש"פ
Notes on the New Era Print E-mail

By Barry Rubin

After the war in Lebanon, the Middle East entered a new era, which was already on the way for a half-dozen years and in which radical Islamism sets the ideological and political agenda. It marks the end of hope for peace or democracy.

Such a trend was already clear in the rejection of peace with Israel by the Palestinian leadership and Syria in 2000; the post-Saddam violence in Iraq; the Arab regimes’ defeat of reform movements; and electoral advances by Hamas, Hizballah, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, among many other developments.

This version of the new Middle East may persist for an entire generation. What is most remarkable is a return to the thinking of the 1950s and 1960s, albeit with an Islamist rather than a pan-Arab nationalist framework. What is especially remarkable is the fact that this earlier worldview and strategy failed so miserably and disastrously, leading the Arab world into years of defeat, wasted resources, dictatorship, and a steady falling behind the rest of the world in many socio-economic categories.

Yet, this new state of affairs does serve two key groups that matter the most in politics: many of the existing regimes and the revolutionary groups that seek to displace them. The basic approach builds on the traditional notion that all the problems of the Arab world and Iran are caused by Israel, America, and the West. It extols a violent struggle in pursuit of total victory rather than pragmatism, democracy, compromise, and economic construction.

In addition, recalling the positions taken a half-century ago, it is argued that Israel, America, and the West are really weak. If Arabs and Muslims are willing to sacrifice themselves and their societies as martyrs, they can achieve victory. In this respect, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Palestinian leader Khaled Mashal, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound eerily like Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Syria’s rulers and others in the 1960s. It was this kind of thinking, for example, that led to the Arab defeat in the 1967 war.

Another pattern this repeats is the belief that some political superhero is going to bring victory to Arabs and Muslims. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was Nasser; in the 1970s, Arafat and Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad, Bashar’s father; in the1980s and 1990s, it was Iraqi President Saddam Hussein; and then briefly Usama bin Ladin. All failed, all were defeated.

Now the new “resistance” axis promises to solve all problems quickly and simply, albeit through large-scale bloodshed. Why compromise if you believe you can achieve total victory, revolution, and wipe Israel off the map with armed struggle and the intimidation of the West? Victory, said Bashar al-Assad in a recent speech, requires recklessness.

Right now, the new alliance of Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas seems to be riding high across the Arab world. They are now the heroes of resistance. For the first time, the Persian/Arab, Shia/Sunni wall has been breached. Within Syria, though not Iran, the adventure also increased the regime’s domestic popularity.

It is important to note that the Syrians and Iranians were able to engage in one of the biggest terrorism sponsorship events in history at no cost whatsoever. Not only did they avoid any direct material damage to their countries but there was no serious international criticism or call for sanctions.

On the public relations’ front in the West--though this should not be exaggerated--Israel came in for far more condemnation than did Tehran and Damascus. This in itself is a victory for the latter. Imagine being able to arm, train, and incite a terrorist group to violate an international border and deliberately target another country’s civilians, suffer no cost, and make your victim come out looking worse! In the terrorism sponsorship business it doesn’t get any better than that.

But matters are not quite so simple. A number of Arab forces have also been antagonised by these events. They include Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, countries threatened by radical Islamist forces; the Lebanese majority, who do not want to be dragged into war by Hizballah or ruled by Damascus and Tehran; Kuwaitis and Iraqis, who have personally discovered the costs of terrorism and extremism; and liberal Arab thinkers, who are disgusted at being pulled back into the kind of approach that has so damaged their societies and limited their freedoms.

Most complicated of all is the situation within Lebanon. Many Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims are on the verge of being ready to fight Hizballah. Even within Hizballah’s own Shia constituency, the rival Amal movement is trying to make a comeback by showing Shia Muslims that it provides better services than Hizballah.

If Hizballah does not keep its promise to rebuild all the damage, will it lose most of its followers? And if Hizballah sabotages the ceasefire, how are those just returning to southern Lebanon going to feel about the prospect of fleeing again?

An important question in this context is how the war has affected Israel. While there is no room here to present the evidence for saying so, a serious analysis shows that Israel won the war militarily. For example, Hizballah lost about one-fifth of its best forces, not counting the wounded. For Israel, the proportion was about one-two hundredth of that. If Hizballah restarts the fighting, by refusing to disarm in southern Lebanon and sabotaging the ceasefire, Israel will achieve a far more undeniable success against it.

In direct terms, Israel’s deterrence power has actually been enhanced. When Arab governments look at the crisis, they focus on the high cost to Lebanon. It is clear to them that getting into a war with Israel would be disastrous for them. The chance of their attacking or fighting has declined, though it was low any way. What they fear is getting dragged into a war by radical Islamists.

But in indirect terms, Israel’s deterrence power has fallen, though perhaps by less than it seems. There are two such indirect ways, both of which were central to the fighting in Lebanon: covert sponsorship of terrorism and attacking Israel from someone else’s territory.

The idea of a regime assaulting Israel through another country is not a new one. Egypt and Syria used Jordan and Lebanon for this purpose from the late 1960s onward. The whole history of the PLO and more than a dozen Palestinian terrorist groups are more or less based on the principle of state sponsorship. Events in Lebanon have taken this concept to a new level: the sponsorship of what might be called a well-armed semi-army of suicide soldiers against Israel.

What is both sad and shocking is that few people outside the Middle East understand the devastating defeat suffered for progress due to the international position of, at best, neutrality in the war, and the consequent failure to help Israel, moderate Arab states, and freedom-loving Lebanese. As always in the Middle East, these mistakes will come back to haunt the globe for a long time to come.


Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university.
His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in September.
© 2006 All rights reserved.The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center

The Anti-Defamation League visits China Print E-mail

Nearly sixty Hong Kong Jewish community leaders gathered at the JCC on Monday night, 26 March, to meet a delegation from the Anti-Defamation League and hear its charismatic president, Abe Foxman.

From its inception in 1913 – a year of infamy for American Jews, when Leo Frank was lynched outside Atlanta, Georgia for a murder he did not commit – the Anti-Defamation League has worked “to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.”

It has also taken up the cause of other oppressed citizens, working on behalf of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s, and speaking out against the anti-Catholicism that blossomed during John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

The delegation visiting Hong Kong in March had just spent two weeks in China, visiting Shanghai, Beijing, Harbin and Xian.
The delegation included Mrs. Foxman and about fifteen active members from cities around the United States, including Seattle, New York and Atlanta.

In his address to the Hong Kong audience, Foxman described the mission to China as one of many trips the League makes around the world to reach out to governments on behalf of the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  

Foxman mentioned that China has been important to Jews, not only by providing the world’s most unusual example of Jewish life in an atmosphere devoid of anti-Semitism (the ancient Kaifeng community), but also by showing friendship and openness to Jewish refugees during World War II, when Shanghai accommodated around 30,000 fleeing the Nazis, and thousands more came through that city en route to safety elsewhere.

Foxman  said that Jews have never had as good a life anywhere as they have had in the United States in this century, and “five or ten years ago, we thought anti-Semitism had been defeated.”

“But then came 9-11,” and the anti-Semitism that has arisen since that event has been a new kind, with “new characteristics and a more threatening dimension.”

Once more, he remarked, Jews are murdered because they are Jews: referencing Daniel Pearl, who was murdered by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan, and Ilan Halimi, who was recently murdered in France.

While recognising the threat posed by Iran, Foxman rejoiced at the presence of Israel consuls-general in Hong Kong and Shanghai and an Ambassador in Beijing.

He mentioned cases in which the outrage of the Jewish people was able to effect change: with Soviet Jewry and with the communities in Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia.

Foxman said that while Europe is still in denial about its anti-Semitism, the U.S. has changed from what it was during the 1940’s and is a strong and vocal supporter of Israel.

He went on to say that religious fundamentalism in the U.S. is a threat to democracy, and that when democracy is in trouble, Jews are in trouble. He stressed that the strength of the U.S. Jews is the basis of the strength of the world’s Jews.

In closing, Foxman said that our generation is unique – our parents survived Auschwitz and were privileged to see a Jewish Jerusalem – and we have written an 11th “commandment”: “never again” to be silent.

Our responsibility is not only to each other, as our brothers’ keepers, but to oppressed people all over the world. “If ever Hong Kong needs the Anti-Defamation League, we’ll be here, because we know that if we ever need you, you’ll be there for us.”

Foxman was born in Poland in 1940 and baptised by his Catholic nursemaid. He was hidden during the war, subsequently recovered by his survivor parents, and brought to the United States.

He is a graduate of the Yeshiva of Flatbush (Brooklyn), City University of New York, New York University Law School, and the New School of Social Research.

The Anti-Defamation League has about 40 offices in the U.S.

Following the speech, Foxman took questions. He was asked whether his organisation raised the issue of anti-Israel policies on the part of the Chinese government.  

In answer, Foxman said that they had not done so. He said he had been asked twice if the U.S. would like China better if its political structure were different, a question he had diplomatically evaded.

Foxman mentioned that  one university professor had told him that today, “Communism equals tradition” in China.

He said he had praised the leaders with whom he had met (including the Foreign Minister and the ministers of culture and information) for not inviting representatives of Hamas to come to China.

Another question involved the Anti-Defamation League’s activity in France – had they been active in the aftermath of the Ilan Halimi murder?  

Foxman responded that the Anti-Defamation League, when visiting Jewish communities outside the U.S., tries to respect the wishes of those communities, and prefers to engage them in dialogue and strategising rather than dictating or imposing their own policy.

He stressed that “Jews don’t boycott; Jews have been too many times on the other end of boycotts,” and that he felt that when French President Jacques Chirac had said that “an attack on a few in France is an attack on France,” the picture for Jews in France had changed.

Nonetheless, he noted, he would still not walk down a Lyon or Marseilles street in a kippah.

Finally, Mr. Foxman was asked about the recent flap about anti-Islamic cartoons as a freedom of the press issue. His response was to note that there is a philosophical problem in the U.S. Constitution.

While freedom of speech is absolute under the Constitution, there must be an appropriate response to what is now termed “hate” speech. He stated that the Anti-Defamation League’s position has always been to defer to free speech.

Mr. Foxman remarked that within the context of free speech, the ADL has always tried to show that while “you can be anti-Semitic in the U.S., but it will cost you.”

He noted that Mein Kampf can be purchased from Amazon.com openly in the U.S. but not in Europe, and that legislation against Holocaust denial violates free speech.  He questioned whether the Jewish community really wants David Irving (recently sentenced to prison in Austria for his denials of the Holocaust) in prison.

The ADL’s approach, then, differs substantially from that of Europe. If governments legislate against hate speech, they leave themselves open to the kind of criticism that accompanied the Danish cartoons.

According to Foxman: “The West lost on the cartoon issue.”

Unlikely bedfellows against the bad fellows E-mail

The Middle East has undergone a dramatic shift in alignments, perhaps more significant than anything that has happened since the 1950s. On one side are the HISH powers -Hizballah, Iran, Syria, Hamas-and on the other virtually every other Arab state. The latter, less radical group is also placed in a situation where its interests parallel those of Israel and the United States. They are very much aware of this fact.

Please login or register to see the full article
<< Start < Prev 51 52 53 54 55 Next > End >>

Page 51 of 55

Warning: Parameter 1 to modMainMenuHelper::buildXML() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/joomla789/domains/jewishtimesasia.org/public_html/libraries/joomla/cache/handler/callback.php on line 99
Jewish Times Asia is published by Jewish Times Asia Ltd. © Copyright 2019.
Material in the newspaper or on this site may not be used or reproduced in any form or in any way without permission from the editor.
While every effort has been made to ensure the content is true and accurate, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the printed text.