Focus on the Middle East

Helpful hint
What does "Middle East" mean?
Because not all Muslims are Arabs or Islamists, and some Arabs are Catholic or Protestant, it is sometimes difficult to understand reports out of or about the Middle East. It would seem that many journalists are themselves unclear about these matters.

Authoritative and influential international sources describe the Middle East as "the Arab World plus Iran, Israel, and Turkey." For "Arab World," read that group of nations whose first language is Arabic. The most frequently encountered mistake when discussing the Middle East is believing that the Iranians are Arabs. Iran was formerly Persia. Iranians are Persians; they speak Farsi.

It helps to keep in mind that the major divisions within Islam may be thought of as:
     Sunni = Roman Catholics
     Shi'a = Protestants
     Wahabite = Puritans

Now, go read  the New York Times with confidence! 

ADDENDUM:
American, European, and Arab media differently spell the name of that Iranian-supported terrorist/charitable group. I've encountered Hisbullah, Hezbollah, Hezbollah. And I suspect I've used several spelling in Voice's coverage of the war on terror. I'll tell my spell-check to consider America's Hezbollah correct and over time I'll find and correct earlier misspellings. -- 20 Aug 06

Strike Iran?
The drumbeat of accusations that Iran for practical purposes is already at war with the U.S. poses problems for citizens who cannot know all the facts but who are concerned that the drumbeat coincides too easily with Israel's obvious wish for us to attack Iran. Senator Lieberman is leading that charge.

On the one hand, we do not want to pursue a policy simply because an ally, in this case Israel, wants it. Yet, we cannot ignore the Iranian President's repeated statement that he hopes to destroy us as well as Israel. He may be a madman, but he is his country's president. Insane or not, he must be taken seriously.

Nor is this a matter for open debate in the Congress. Instead, we have no choice but to hope the military, the intelligence community, our diplomatic corps, the White House are not too readily swayed by those neocons who seem obsessed with fostering regime change in any country they dislike. One step at a time. Suppose we take out those training camps in Iran that we're sure are training Iraqi insurgents?

American Arabs must speak more openly about Islamic fundamentalism; American Jews must decide whether they are Americans or Israelis
VersagiVoice has criticized American Arabs for remaining too silent too long about condemning the terrorist tactics of fanatical Islamists, and Voice has suggested that Middle Easterners will unfortunately have to live with profiling, because -- with an exception here and there -- it is identifiable Middle Easterners who are openly threatening us.

Reasonably, one cannot be too closed-minded about the Arab and Muslim unwillingness to condemn Hezbollah outright, even as they question some of the group's policies. The good work that Hezbollah does is tangible and just as visible as the good work of Christian missionaries and Jewish charitable organizations, and certainly there have been objections that missionaries tend to "undermine" non-Western societies and cultures, even to collaborate with the CIA and the U.S. military . . . and that Jewish-American aid to Israel enhances that country's "imperialistic" capability. 

So far, though, there has been no identifiable American Arab group whose position causes American in general to wonder whether the Arabs' fellow-feeling for Middle Easterners is so strong as to raise doubts about their allegiance to the United States. Even the concern re Lebanon is in terms of humanitarian aid for refugees -- and for specific families.

Not so with American Jews, unfortunately. Those American Jews denigrated -- by fellow Jews -- as "Assimilationists" immediately after the founding of the State of Israel feared that Jews would be suspected of dual allegiance if they became too closely associated with the new country. And that suspicion -- quiet for decades -- came forth during the Lebanon Mess. Gentle gentiles, with or without Jewish acquaintances or friends, are bristling at being labeled anti-Semitic when they question a decision or an action of the Israeli government.

It does not help that Jews, American and worldwide, are too quick to proclaim, "Opposing Israel is the new anti-Semitism."  That charge too conveniently parallels Blacks using the race card to avoid debating specific issues. -- Nov 2006

Australia tells Muslims: Assimilate or leave
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear
that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then  Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option ", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the another country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values
should 'clear off'.

"Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off," he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.
Take It Or Leave it.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by
coming to Australia. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

 "As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own     language and our own lifestyle.

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, LEARN the language!

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right-wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

 "We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. ALL we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go,' then you should seriously consider a move to another part of the planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come ere. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted." -- 03 September 2006

NOTE: In America's early history, especially during Andrew Jackson's time, our policies toward the Indians was "assimilate or leave," a policy which led to forced marches west during which hundreds died.

Acknowledgement of opposing views does not equate to moral equivalence
Sympathy for the Lebanese -- Christian, Muslim, secular -- is natural, instinctive. Empathy, perhaps without sympathy, for Palestinian/Iranian/Arab resentment of Israel is equally spontaneous for a thinking person. Yet, one must understand when Israeli officials proclaim that they cannot be dissuaded from self-defense by mass protests around the world. We need only recall that there were massive protests by our European "Allies" against several ultimately successful Reagan-implemented measures during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

That said, it was disheartening repeatedly to hear a Lebanese plea for an end to the destruction of his country followed by an arrogant Israeli rebuttal which can be characterized by an aphorism many of us first heard in military life: "tough s---".

Some understanding of the Jewish mindset may be gained by recalling that Chaim Weizmann often reminded his fellow Zionists and the world that the real opponents of Zionism can never be placated because their objection to the Jews is the fact that Jews exist. One result of adapting to that mindset is that Israelis -- especially native-born "sabras" -- manifest their chutzpah by "unmitigated gall" and "sheer impertinence," according to Jay Y. Gonen in his book A Psychohistory of Zionism.

That there are two or more "sides" to the Mideast mess does not equate to moral equivalence. But there are two or more sides.

Who said/wrote that?
During the notorious McCarthy era, and even now, conscientious liberals rightly enjoyed presenting conservatives with an unattributed socialist-sounding statement and asking the conservatives to guess who made the statement. After the rednecks had suggested two or three pinkos, the liberals would reveal that the speaker was the Pope or some such -- the point being that too many of us unthinkingly accept or reject a statement based on its source.

About the tendency to charge anti-Semitism when someone disagrees with a decision or action by Israel and the unease which that causes among many non-Jewish Americans, consider this reasoned statement:

Protesting Israeli actions has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. And it should concern us when so many citizens of our area so closely identify with a foreign country that they take an attack on that country's policies as a personal insult to their faith.

Does that point of view lose validity because it was made by an Arab American?

Muslim fundamentalists and . . . World War I
When Turkey entered the war as an ally of Christian Germany at the end of October, 1914, Muslim fundamentalists in Arabia renewed their resentment and fighting against those Young Turks who had secularized the Ottoman Empire. Those Turks had proclaimed the equality of all faiths. Arab, Turk, Muslim, secularist -- they all committed atrocities during what the British considered an Arab "revolt."  Lawrence of Arabia came into the picture somewhere along the line. His romantic legend aside, history has been unable to evaluate Lawrence's actual impact, other than to characterize him as "part genius, part charlatan, and entirely an enigma." 

Focus on the Middle East

  • Democrat U.S. Representative John Dingell has properly defended those of his Arab constituents in Dearborn who have rallied for peace in Lebanon . The question remains though, why that Arab community has been essentially quiet about Islamist terrorism in general. The fact that man in the Dearborn community are Christian Arabs adds somewhat to the puzzlement. 

  • On that thought, it is understandable but unreasonable for the Arab community to complain about  "profiling." Police and other security agencies would be derelict in their duty if t hey did not practice profiling, admitted or not. During the civil rights fights in our South, the FBI said they were looking for white men driving around in pickups with gun racks, not black share-croppers.

  • Our country's refusal -- through several administrations -- to normalize relationships with Cuba is unthinkingly juvenile and spiteful. What's Cuba doing among Middle East-focused items? To call attention to the same unthinking reluctance to engage Iran and Syria re the current Lebanon crisis. Actually, having read much of Kissinger's writings, I am hopeful that there is back-channel communication going on that we aren't yet aware of. One motive of some of those who insist there's nothing to be gained by talking with Iran and Syria is the hope that we will "take them on" militarily. We engaged Reagan's "evil empire" in dialogue; why can't we communicate with countries we include in Bush's "axis of evil." But  wait, isn't that exactly what we did with Libya? 

The Lebanon Mess

  • Cheap Shot
    Those Republicans behave badly who attack U.S. Democrat Representative John Dingell for suggesting that there might be more than one viewpoint re Jew-Arab relationships, domestic and international. So far, only a handful of American public figures -- columnists, retired generals, elected officials -- have been brave enough to risk being labeled anti-Semitic by suggesting that we Americans must not seem to be sharing all of Israel's goals. After all, it is not unusual for us to disagree seriously with other allies about specific matters. The Lebanon Mess has made enemies for us of even formerly grateful Iraqis.

  • We've heard that protesting Arab Americans should "Go back to Lebanon." Unfortunately, we are likely soon be hearing  that American Jews who rally to support Israel should "Go back to Israel."

  • Roads in Lebanon apparently move traffic only one way. Israelis assure us that they are destroying travel from Syria as part of their war on Hezbollah. Nothing said about making it impossible for United Nation and other aid, massed in Syria, to reach the suffering Lebanese, or about permitting some of those suffering Lebanese to escape to Syria. Speaking of labeling, it is understandable that, besides Muslims and Arabs, some Westerners are beginning to suggest that the Israelis, too, are "terrorists."  

When will the Arab World counterattack?
Wonder what would happen if Syria or Iran conducted a few bomb runs over Israel? It is hard to think of what friend of the United States could have done more to harm us than what Israel has done by intensifying Arab hatred of all things American.

Bush needs to cut us free from unwavering support of Israel.  No American should die or be wounded to defend a country which has deliberately converted an incident into a war. -- 02 August 2006

Jews vs. Arabs
Not moral equivalence but understandable conflicting mindsets
Sympathy for the Lebanese -- Christian, Muslim, secular -- is natural, instinctive. Empathy, perhaps without sympathy, for Palestinian/Iranian/Arab resentment of Israel is equally spontaneous for a thinking person. Yet, one must understand when Israeli officials proclaim that they cannot be dissuaded from self-defensive by mass protests around the world. We need only recall that there were massive protests by our European "Allies" against several ultimately successful Reagan-implemented measures during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

That said, it is disheartening to hear a Lebanese plea for an end to the destruction of his country followed by an arrogant Israeli rebuttal which can be characterized by an aphorism many of us first heard in military life: "tough shit."

Some understanding of the Jewish mindset may be gained by recalling Chaim Weizmann's repeatedly reminding his fellow Zionists and the world that the real opponents of Zionism can never be placated because their objection to the Jews is the fact that Jews exist.

One result of that mindset is that Israelis -- especially native-born -- manifest their chutzpah by "unmitigated gall" and "sheer impertinence," according to Jay Y. Gonen in his book A Psychohistory of Zionism.

That there are two or more "sides" to the Mideast mess does not equate to moral equivalence. But there are two or more sides. -- 02 August 2006

That Lebanon War

  • About fighting jihadists, we repeatedly hear, "Where are the moderate Muslims?"

  • About recent gatherings in Dearborn protesting the destruction of Lebanon by Israel, Detroit area Jews have been asking, "Where are the moderate Arabs?"

  • We have yet to hear, "Where are the moderate Jews?"

Even in Israel, there have been protests about the Lebanon war, but American Jews seem to be of one mind in their unreserved support of Israel.

When Israel was created 58 years ago, some American Jews, who were derogatorily labeled "Assimilationists" by their co-religionists, worried that gentiles might become uneasy about "dual allegiance" of American Jews. Fast-forward to now: What other ethnic-American group so monolithically supports the foreign policy of its second "homeland"? The Jewish response: "Opposing Israel is today's anti-Semitism."

UPDATE: As this is written, there are news reports that the U.S. is rushing a supply of bombs to Israel. This, while we criticize Iran and Syria for aiding Hezbollah. Is it any wonder that Europe and the non-Jewish Middle East population no longer consider us an "honest broker"? 

It is offensive, and too conveniently evasive, to suggest that asking such questions is anti-Semitic. -- 26 July 2006

Not this time
Israel deserves no aid, financial or military
Israel's disproportionate collective punishment in reaction, supposedly, to the kidnapping of three soldiers is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Nazi practice in WWII of razing entire villages in retribution for the killing of German soldiers by partisans. I'm certain that The Nazis, like the Israelis, felt justified in what they were doing.

As much as I dislike doing so, especially as a Bush supporter, I agree with France and Russia and the other European nations that Israel is in the wrong this time. Let us not be so one-sidedly pro-Israel that we repeat what happened when Egypt's President Sadat -- seeing destroyed Israeli tanks being replaced daily by American tanks -- realized he had to quit, because "I was now fighting America, not just Israel." 

As the English were fond of saying during their hundreds of years of world domination, "We have permanent  interests, not permanent  allies."

It is a mistaken judgment to pretend that Israel's imperiousness cannot be separated from our fight against terrorism. If Israel wants to take on Lebanon and Syria, and possibly Egypt and Iran, let it be at her own peril. It is unwise to think that the United States can safely continue to ignore the rights and needs of more than 200 million Arabs, not all of them  militant Islamists. It is equally unwise to bemoan that countries like Iran and Syria support what they see as their just battle against an enemy in their midst. 

Obviously, any permanent settlement of the Palestinian problem is going to require  two states, with borders guaranteed by the presence of NATO and Russian, not UN, forces -- for a hundred years or so. Any other "road map" will be a house of cards. -- 19 July 2006

An unwelcome test for U.S. diplomacy
Using the kidnapping of a single solider as an excuse to do what it obviously wants to do anyway, the State of Israel is threatening to assassinate a prime minister and to go to war -- in Gaza and perhaps with Lebanon and Syria. Just what we need. 200-pllus million Arabs at war with Israel -- and with the United States?

With friends like that . . .

Understandably, Arab and Muslim sources view the Israeli-Palestinian mess differently than we in the West, with some of them reminding the world that "the Zionist entity" still has dreams of a renewed Greater Israel, ranging from Jerusalem to Baghdad. See Some Arab American Thoughts.-- 12 July 2006

You say 'jihad,' we say 'crusade.'
The militant Muslims who have declared a holy war against the infidel West do not hesitate to state that they are fighting a religious war, so I think those in the West who hesitate to use the term "crusade" are unnecessarily wimpish -- even as I recognize that the West has not declared war on all of Islam. A little context here:

Islam's three major sects have forever declared war on each other. Consider the Sunni the equivalent of Catholics, the Shi'a the same as Protestants, and the Saudi-based  Wahabites as Puritans. Then remember how Catholic France formed alliances with Protestant countries to fight other Catholic countries and how Protestant England formed alliances with Catholic countries to oppose other Protestant countries, and you come to understand how perceived political and military necessities often trump religion when foreign policy is concerned.

During the 18th century, when Turkey was an Islamic state, not the secular state it is now, the Iraq, Turkey, Persia (Iran) military alliances showed the same flexibility of Sunnis and Shi'a alternately opposing and allying with each other, depending on perceived political and military necessities.

Especially now that the Taliban have been defeated and dispossessed, any "crusade" the West mounts will be against stateless enemies and their supporters, with consideration for but not excessive deference toward Christian-Islam theological differences. (May 2003)

A little background.

    * In 1993 Qaddafi, Saddam, and clerics from Egypt, Algeria, The Sudan, and Afghanistan jointly announced a new holy crusade against Christian nations.
    * Ayatollah Khomeni predicted that the fall of communism would set in place a war between Christianity and Islam.
    * Just prior to the first Gulf War, there were findings of "high-tech caves where uranium enrichments projects were under way." The CIA was able then to monitor the situation and knew whenever such equipment was moved.
    * Congressional charges, really posturing, about an "American Gestapo" because of security concerns were so widespread that even conservatives like William Safire thought Bush was lying to the public about Iraq and urged fellow-republicans to vote for Clinton.
    * Because successful intelligence operations were able to cut off Saddam's financial resources by 1990, the dictator sent tanks into oil-rich Kuwait.
    * Go back even further in history. The Barbary Pirates, saw their actions as appropriate to defend their faith against the infidels.
    America, the West, may not want it, but we may be in for this century's Hundred Year War -- or, as the current President Bush says, "as long as it takes." 
    Put it in perspective. The U.S. has had troops in Europe for 60 years, in Korea for 50.

Also see

Australia tells Muslims, "Assimilate or Leave."

The war against the Islamists

Some Arab American Thoughts.

This time, no aid to Israel

Some American Jews worry that other American Jews are making the wrong choice re Iraq
Recently, VersagiVoice had occasion to comment that American Jews "don't all think alike." Since then, there have been published reports of Jews contending that the Union for Reform Judaism's demand for quick withdrawal from Iraq is "more focused on supporting the political aspirations of American Democrats than on the security of the State of Israel." The "American Jewish Community's attachment to the political left" is considered worrisome by those, not necessarily assimilationists, who are uneasy with too-facile references to the existence of an American Jewish Community mindset.

"Reform Jewish leaders have put what they presume to the the secular equivalent to Judaism above the interests of Judaism itself. The Union for Reform Judaism stands for many causes. It's no longer clear that Jews count among them," says Lawrence F. Kaplan, senior editor of the New Republic.