Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Middle East Page 11 of 22

The Right of Israel to Exist and the Fresh Hell it Is Heading Towards

By

On May 12, 2021

Comments

I’ll be plain here: As a religious ethnic state which prefers Jews, I do not grant that Israel has the right to exist. (Wonder how many subscriptions that statement just cost me?)

As a state where everyone has equal rights, it has every right to exist, and all its residents should be left in peace.

Palestinians and non-Jews like Muslims are humans. As humans, they should be treated with the same rights as every other human.

What is happening right now is that Palestinian homes are being stolen by force. When the law is used (it often isn’t), it applies one set of laws to Palestinians, and another to Israeli Jews.

Meanwhile, at al-Aqsa mosque, entirely peaceful worshipers are being gassed and beaten. One signature move is “knee on neck,” of George Floyd fame, which is how fascist cops give the middle finger to everyone decent in the world, now. There are videos of this, with millions of views.

If you are a humanist who believes in universal human rights, you cannot support the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethnic-state. It was created by taking the lands and homes of other people, and it exists by keeping those people and their descendants a second class residents, often with great violence. Nor have its crimes ever stopped.

Map Story of Palestine

Map Story of Palestine

What this map should tell you is something simple: There is no possibility of a two-state solution; there is no viable Palestine without removing large numbers of violent settlers. Those settlers would assassinate any Israeli leader who tried, and odds are the army and police would help them.

What it also tells you is that Palestinians are still being ethnically cleansed. This is not a historic crime, long or short in the past, it is an ongoing crime.

 Two-state is dead. There are only two ends to this: The Israelis finish ethnic cleansing the Palestinians, or they give them full rights and citizenship and end the Jewish-ethnic nature of Israel.

It is very odd that cleansing Palestinians is, sub-voce, justified by the Holocaust. Being genocided does not give a free “ethnic cleansing” card, and if it did, one presumes it would be against those who genocided you. I, as someone of primary Irish descent, would presumably get one against the English (and, Lord, if anyone deserves it, the English are high on the list, but I will not descend to their level and kill vast swathes of innocents).

If Israel was “justice” for the Holocaust, then it should have been created by ethnically cleansing Germans out of Prussia.

But the issue here is that Israel is a religious-ethnic state where almost half the population (and yes, Palestinians are ruled primarily by Israel, not by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, don’t make me laugh) are not even second-class citizens. It is an apartheid state, just not yet one with percentages as bad as those in South Africa.

Israelis of good conscience or good sense, know the horror they now face. What lessons did they learn from the Nazis? Who have they become? What is the state of their souls, should souls exist?

Van Creveld, an Israeli military historian and hardly a bleeding heart:

They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people… they are idealists… they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose-lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel… if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam… it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal

Israel, so far, has done great criminal acts. But yes, it has only ethnically cleansed, it has not committed genocide.

For their own sakes, I hope that Israelis will realize the precipice upon which they stand and see how they have let a combination of fear, power, and greed for a homeland convince them that a Jewish ethnic state is worth what it is costing them.

The next play is to bring down al-Aqsa mosque, and rebuild the Temple. Be very clear that that is where this is going.

May God, if he exists and is beneficient and not a monster, extend his blessings over all involved, that they see the hell they live in, and the worse hell they are charging towards. To live in peace, under just and kind laws applied evenly to all, is to live in heaven. To deny that peace or equal law, is to deny God.

(The more people subscribe or donate the more I write and the happier I am. So please consider doing so if you like my writing.)

Iran Isn’t Going to Let Itself Be Kicked to Death Without Fighting Back

By

On January 7, 2020

Comments

As expected, and very cleanly and clearly. No attempt to obfuscate:

At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence.

Iranian state TV says the attack is a retaliation after the country’s top commander Qasem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

As I noted when Iran general (and war hero) Qasem Soleimani was assassinated, Iran pretty much had to retaliate.

Soleimani was effectively the most powerful General in Iran. Think of him as a combination of Eisenhower and someone who fought on the front lines: to Iranians, a genuine hero. The man who actually was most responsible for defeating ISIS, among other things.

You could regard him as the second most important man in Iraq.

If the US could kill him without consequences, no one in Iran’s leadership was safe, except possibly Khameini (the Supreme Leader) and maybe not even him.

Retaliating is a matter of personal survival for Iran’s leadership. Personal.

But Soleimani was also tremendously popular. So, as often happens when attacked by outsiders, even Iranians who dislike the Iranian regime have rallied around. (Americans may remember something similar after 9/11.)

I note that Iran has retaliated by hitting military targets. Which is to say: The US killed someone in their military, they have retaliated by attacking the US military. I would say that this is legitimate.

Only bullies think that their victims are obligated to sit still while being hit and not punch back. Oh, and a lot of Americans.

Trump threatened that if Iran retaliated he would hit multiple targets, including cultural ones. Iran has said that if he does so they will escalate, including hitting Israel and Dubai.

What they are trying to indicate is that they are not going to be Iraq. It isn’t going to be some nice clean war where the victim sits still while bombed to shit by US forces and only a few American soldiers die, which no one actually cares about who matters. (No, no, don’t pretend that American leaders actually care about American casualties, their actions indicate they do not and you’ll look like an idiot and a fool.)

Remember that Iran is an ally of both Russia and China. China needs Iran in order to complete its Belt and Road Initiative (the centerpiece of both their economic and alliance strategy and Xi Jinping’s signature policy, upon which his legacy rests). Russia is run by Putin, who has made not allowing the US to destroy any more Russian allies the centerpiece of his foreign policy. It’s why he went into Syria, and it’s why he hates Hilary Clinton so much, as he regarded her as the prime US actor in destroying Libya.

So this war has a real chance of serious escalation. Iraq was isolated and had no friends. Iran is somewhat isolated, yes, but it does have powerful friends who believe it is in their self-interest to keep Iran from being blown into failed state status by the US.

Again, the logic here is the same as Iran’s as regards escalation: If Russia (and China) let the US take out their allies whenever the US wants, then what is to stop the US from just doing that until these countries have no allies left?

This is a dangerous moment, and the US is not in the right here. The US unilaterally caused this problem by assassinating a senior government official. All the whinging on about how Soleimani has been involved in Iranian proxy attacks on the US is ludicrous: The official US policy is to fund and aid terrorists attacking Iran (look it up.) US officials, certainly including every President since Bush, have made decisions leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and other countries’ military personnel.

This is realpolitik, not some morality play. There are no good guys here, there are just people who are acting on orders or in what they think are the interests of their country. (Or, in Trump’s case, his own interests.)

The correct action right now is to not escalate again. Escalation will lead to a lot of dead people, for no gain for either Iran or the US.

Note that I despise Iran’s regime. I am a left-winger who believes in the equality of men and women, kindness and universal humanity, not in theocratic government. If Iran’s government were to fall tomorrow, I’d be OK with that.

But that’s internal Iranian business. It’s not America’s business to start a war with Iran. It will not make anything better, any more than attacking Iraq did, or attacking Libya (which now has its famous open air slave markets).

It should also be noted that, if the war happens, the Europeans are going to get slammed with another bunch of refugees. Perhaps they should pre-empt this by sending some troops to Tehran, so that if Trump attacks, he has to kill Germans and French.

Kidding, kidding. I know that the EU has no actual morals and not enough guts to do this. But, y’know, in an alternate universe where they actually had the bravery to stand up to the US either in their own interests, or in something approaching a desire to do the right thing…

We’ll see how this plays out.

But remember, Iran isn’t planning on sitting still and taking it. This isn’t going to be Iraq of Afghanistan. If this turns into a real war, they will hit back with everything they have, rather than hoping that if they just lie there and let the US kick them, the US will stop before kicking them to death.

And China and (especially) Russia don’t want them kicked to death.

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Is Trump Trying to Start a War with Iran?

By

On January 2, 2020

Comments

Qasem Soleimani

And maybe with Iraq, too.

Trump has had the second most powerful man in Iraq, the leader of the Qods force, Qasem Soleimani, killed. This is like someone assassinating the Joint Chief of Staff combined with the Leader of the House.

Qasem Soleimani was also very close to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader–a personal friend.

On top of this, US forces in Iraq have arrested the leaders of two of Iraq’s most important militias.

These are, well, acts of war. Iranian sources are saying that there will be retaliation, no question.

Iran has far more power and influence than the US in Iraq, if a real war starts, it is very likely that it will be the US against Iran, Iraq,, and possibly Syria.

Iran and Syria are, effectively, allies of Russia.

Iran, like everyone else who fears the US and has enough resources, has spent the last 20 years preparing specifically for war with the US. They have built a fearsome missile force, designed to hit US ships and bases, and to be too large to shoot down and stop. They have stated that, in war, they will shut down the Gulf, meaning that oil prices around the world will soar, likely causing a financial crisis and severe recession–possibly a depression.

Putin is determined, moreover, to not allow the US to destroy any more Russian allies. One of his huge regrets was allowing Libya to be destroyed. He will want to keep Iran from being defeated.

The funny thing about this is that killing and arresting leaders will make far less difference than the US imagines: In organizations where everyone believes in the mission (like militias and Qods), those leaders will just be replaced. The person who replaces them will be competent, and will want revenge. The US always overestimates the importance of leaders, because a US leader’s job is to get people to do things they don’t really believe are worth doing.

This is an amazing clusterfuck. The Iranians are in a bind: If they do not launch some sort of savage reprisal, then the message is clear, the US can kill any Iranian they want–if they can kill the second most powerful man in Iran, who’s off the table?

Iraqi militias and the government face a similar quandry: If they do nothing, it is clear their independence is a complete sham, and they are still ruled by America.

On the other hand, if they escalate at a symmetrical level, they will have to do so much damage that the US will rally around Trump and scream for Trump to strike them again–and even harder. Various American Rambo-patriots are already flexing their muscles and making threats.

It isn’t hard to see how that could quickly lead to war, but the other option for both Iran and Iraq is essentially to lick the boots that just kicked them.

Fun stuff.

If Trump doesn’t walk this back, hard, there may well be the most serious war in decades. At the far end, though I think it’s unlikely, it certainly isn’t impossible for this to escalate into a war involving both Russia and the US, on opposite sides.

This is a profoundly dangerous moment. Don’t underestimate just how badly this could turn out.

(And remember that Obama normalized this idea, seeded by, Bush Jr., that the US had the right to kill foreigners anytime, anywhere, subject only to the President’s discretion. Not only an evil idea, but a profoundly dangerous one. The US’s entire drone assassination program needs to be shut down, now and permanently.)

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Jews to Be a Nationality

By

On December 11, 2019

Comments

Sigh

President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department’s efforts to stamp out “Boycott Israel” movements on college campuses

This is, of course, the standard anti-semitic smear of the 19th and 20th centuries: That Jews cannot be loyal to their country, because they are loyal to other Jews first. This was also said, by the way, of Catholics, because of the Pope, and it’s why John F. Kennedy becoming President as a Catholic was a big deal, and why he felt he had to explicitly state that he wouldn’t take orders from the Pope.

But all those Jews, and there are many, who have been so vehement in support of Israel that they say, in effect, that any criticism of Israel is criticism of Jews and therefore anti-semitic have also brought us here.

Trump just believes them. The interests of Jews and Israel are identical, to him. Just like they are to the Anti-Defamation League.

This is, of course, a horrible thing. It will lead, in time, to many people being sure that Jews are traitors to the US, because they put another country before the US. Traitors are generally considered to deserve death.

How did we get here?

Well, Hitler genocided millions of Jews–after he liquidated the socialists and trade unionists (he knew his real enemies). That scared and horrified many Jews, as it would anyone. So a bunch of them, in a land they didn’t control, used military force to throw out the then-current occupants (if they didn’t, then their opposition to Palestinians returning and taking their homes back is odd), and set up a religious ethnostate. Because if someone genocides your people, the best response is to ethnic cleanse another group. (Yeah, it meets the definition, sorry.)

At this point, the Israelis rule a lot of Palestinians and treat them terribly, in what many consider an apartheid system. Nelson Mandela always opposed the occupation, and his grandson has straight-up said Israel is an apartheid state.

So the sort of people who oppose injustice now want to treat Israel the way South Africa was treated when it was an apartheid state. But the Israeli lobby is extremely strong in the US (please don’t waste anyone’s time denying this), in large part because of the large numbers of American Jews who support Israel, even when it’s doing evil things. (The other large group supporting Israel is the evangelicals, who want Israel to put up the Temple so that the apocalypse can happen. Nice folks.)

So Trump is giving Israeli supporters and Jews (not the same group, always) what he thinks they want.

Perhaps the real problem is nationalism: the idea that every ethnic group deserves self-determination in the form of its own state. Perhaps that’s a bad idea, actually. (Nazism comes directly out of this: “Blood and land and folk.”) Perhaps ethnic states aren’t a good thing, because we shouldn’t base how we treat people on their ethnicity. This doesn’t mean everyone has to open their border to unlimited immigration or any thing silly, but it does mean people in their country should be treated equally.

That’s all that’s being asked for these days. Treat Palestinians equally. Make them citizens with equal rights. The two-state solution is dead, anyone looking at a map knows that. So, are you going to have a massive second-class population or actually be a genuinely democratic state?

The problem is that Israel can’t remain a religious ethnostate if it does that.

Meanwhile, putting Israel first, before Jews has, in effect, lead to a situation in the US which imperils Jews. In Britain it has lead to an entire campaign run on the idea that Corbyn is anti-semitic, when he’s spent his entire life fighting racism. Why? Because Corbyn is opposed to current Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

The funny thing is that both Israel and Jewish people would be safer and better off if they simply did the right thing and gave Palestinians citizenship.

But people who have been terribly abused too often think that abusing other people is the only way to be safe.

It’s sad, and I hope for everyone’s sake–especially the Jews and Palestinians–that this era of conflating Jewish and Israeli interests and of weaponizing charges of anti-semitism against people who oppose injustice, ends soon.

We’ll all, minus some settlers, be a lot better off.

(Or, to put it another way: Don’t be evil, K?)

Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Simple Truth About Libya and Syria

By

On October 4, 2019

Comments

Whatever one thinks of the pre-war regimes of Assad and Qaddafi, the majority of people in Syria were better off before the wars. This so completely undeniable, that anyone who claims otherwise is delusional or a liar (and hopefully on a payroll).

War should have the highest bar of all because, as was noted at Nuremburg, it includes all other crimes, from rape and murder on down, within it.

“We came, we saw, he died,” said Hilary Clinton. Evil. Beyond evil. Anyone with two brain cells, after seeing Iraq and Afghanistan, could predict that the Western allies couldn’t rebuild Libya and that it would be far worse off afterwards.

While not all of Europe’s refugee crisis is Libya- and Syria-related, a lot of it is, and Europeans (who, remember, pushed hard for regime change–especially the French) and Americans are morally, and should be legally, responsible for those refugees. Rather than refusing them, in a just world, they would be required to house and feed them, having been complicit in destroying their countries.

All of this is so obvious it should be beyond question to anyone remotely sentient.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

How Important Is the Drone Attack on the Saudi Oil Field?

By

On September 16, 2019

Comments

As you’d expect from the title, both more and less than it seems.

The impact on oil prices is not that big a deal, despite the screaming. If they were to, say, wind up at $75/barrel for a few months, well the last time we had prices that high was…less than a year ago. It’s possible this will push us into a long-delayed recession, but if it does, that recession was going to happen anyway.

If Trump acts like an idiot and attacks Iran, of course, this will turn out to be a big deal. Otherwise, it isn’t a big deal, in and of itself.

Nor should anyone be crying for the Saudis. Assume it is true the attack was launched by Yemeni Houthis with some Iranian support. Remember that Saudi Arabia has been bombing and deliberately starving Yemen for years. They’re at war, and if the Houthis have a bit of support from Iran, what of it? Saudi Arabia itself has supported many organizations which have attacked other nations, possibly including Al-Qaeda and 9/11.

If you bomb the shit out of a country, and they manage to get in one hit against you? Boo-hoo.

Nor should the US care, as Saudi Arabia is a terrible ally who has done more harm to American interests than any other “ally” in the world, with the only possible exception of Israel.

This isn’t a US problem–and it shouldn’t be their war, and they should stop helping Saudi Arabia hit Yemen. But I guess the Sauds have always been good to the House of Trump, so perhaps there will be a war, on behalf of Trump hotels.

That aside, as I have written a number of times, drones are, and were always going to be, a weapon of the weak, and it is becoming harder and harder to defend against them. The US military was incredibly stupid to develop them, because ultimately they remove part of the monopoly of force from powerful countries. A world in which air strikes require jets that only a few countries can build, and which are expensive, large, and easy-to-find is a world which is much more favorable to great powers.

Instead, we have the cost of a somewhat-effective air force and assassination force dropping through the floor. Soon, these things will be routinely used by very small governments and non-state actors to kill their enemies; specific, named enemies, just as the US has been doing for a couple decades now.

This is going to get ugly.

It’s not all bad, taken from a longer point of view. Ages where elites can easily be killed tend to concentrate elite minds. In some places, that will lead to even worse police states, but the other way to solve the issue is to make people’s lives pretty good. People with pretty good lives tend to have better things to do than engage in political violence.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Khameini’s Three Directives for Iran

By

On July 22, 2019

Comments

From the useful Elija Mangnier,

1 – Adherence to Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and everything related to this science at all costs. Nuclear enrichment is a sword Iran can hold in the face of the West, which wants to take it from Tehran. It is Iran’s card to obstruct any US intention of “obliterating” Iran.

2 – Continue to develop Iran’s missile capability and ballistic programs. This is Iran’s deterrent weapon that prevents its enemies from waging war against it. Sayyed Ali Khamenei considers the missile program a balancing power to prevent harm against Iran.

3 – Support Iran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and never abandon them, because they are essential to Iran’s national security.

Now, basically, this is an extended riff on the sad joke that Hussein’s Iraq and Gaddafi’s Libya were destroyed after they were disarmed. Libya’s case is particularly sad: Gaddafi disarmed in exchange for safety and inclusion, and instead was attacked.

Everyone with sense knows this: You can’t disarm in the face of the US or its core Western allies, France and England. All three nations are rabid dogs who believe that, though they have the right to invade or fuck up other nations (the psychology behind this is beyond messy), no one has the right to harm them.

(And yeah, France is bad. Almost certainly worse than Britain at this point in its constant interference, especially anywhere they had colonial interests. The French know they are special and civilized, and that other nations need their bayonets.)

Other nations which completely can’t be trusted include Israel and Saudi Arabia, both key American allies.

All these countries, having been sheltered under the superpower’s skirts since the end of the Cold War, feel entitled to fuck up nations which are out of favor with the big bully, the US.

The dynamic, while messy, isn’t very complicated.

As for the Iranian situation, with the seizure of tankers, and the “maximal” sanctions, and with Europe doing basically nothing to help rescue the nuclear deal, I have to say the prospects for this spiralling out of control are high.

I don’t think that Trump wants war. He wants Iran to disarm, then another President will take them out (or their local enemies).

But Iran isn’t going to do that, and the sanctions are so harmful that they amount to war by other means. And as Trump’s administration ratchets up the pressure, and Iran responds, it won’t take much for it turn to hot war. All it will take is one mistake, one miscalculation and Trump deciding he needs to act tough.

The entire situation is very tiring and very stupid. This mess in the Middle East isn’t the US’s problem, everyone is willing to sell them oil (and the US is the world’s largest producer now anyway, thanks to Obama), and they have very few actual strategic interests which are served by meddling.

Even the argument that they must be there to keep the oil flowing is obvious BS, since their meddling is increasing the probability of a huge disruption, and over the past 30 years sanctions and war have tended to reduce oil supplies rather than increase them. (Some will argue that’s been the point. But reducing oil supplies is not in the US’s national interest even if some Americans want it.)

Go home, Yankee. You aren’t needed in the Middle East.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

UK Seizes Iranian Tanker, So Iran Seizes UK Tanker

By

On July 20, 2019

Comments

That’s the news, basically.

Well, Iran also seized a Liberian-flagged tanker, not sure why (may be operating for a British company).

Also not sure why the UK seized an Iranian tanker in the first place. The UK has said it supports the Iranian nuclear deal, and the US sanctions on which it was operating are destroying that deal.

But I suppose lap-dog nations will be lap-dog nations and the UK wants a free trade deal with the US badly for Brexit, and all indications are that the US is demanding massive concessions in exchange for one.

So this may be a little something on the side from Britain.

But as far as I’m concerned, the US sanctions on Iran are completely illegitimate, and no other country should be helping enforce them. That includes Canada, especially after we arrested a Huawei executive for breaking Iran sanctions, and that also includes the UK.

I rather doubt Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the first place, though I don’t see why they shouldn’t have nukes when Israel does. But neither of those observations are the point, anyway.

Meanwhile this whole mess has just emphasized, again, that you can’t make a deal with the US and trust them to keep it. The second some new politician gets in who doesn’t like it, they won’t just break it, they’ll hurt you badly.

(Admin: Feel free to use the comments on this post as an open thread, as well.)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 11 of 22

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén