Category: Middle East Page 18 of 23

Israel

On June 30, 2014

1) Israel is a settler state.

2) Israeli land was, mostly, taken from other people, by force.

3) Thus the vast majority of Israelis live on land taken by force from the indigs.

4) The “settlers”,are simply the leading edge of taking land and destroying homes, by force, from the indigs.

5) Israel is, also, a religious ethnic state where you only have the full rights of citizenship if you are of the correct religion.

If you are a believer in modern secular democracy, it is hard to see any solution for the Israel/Palestine issue which is not a single state solution. Give everyone in Palestine full citizenship rights, including the right to vote.

It happened in South Africa. It may happen in Palestine. If it doesn’t, the other routes out are uglier: full-on ethnic cleansing, or a loss by Israel of its “Jewish legal identity” in war (no, their nukes won’t protect them.)

America isnt’ going to be able or willing to support Israel’s colonial ambitions forever.

None of this is to say that Israel’s crimes are unique. Conquering indigs and taking their land is old-hat. Those of us who live in North America are lucky—our genocide was long over before most of us were born, and much of it was done by germs. We keep the few remaining indigs largely on reservations, where they live in squalid 3rd world conditions, far from the sight of their conquerers. Israelis live right on top of those they are conquering, and have to become indifferent at best or monsters who regard Palestinians as sub-human at worst, in order to function. After all, the Palestinians are still right there, in their face, daring to look like humans who some mother loved.

“The weak do what they must, the powerful what they will” – Thucydides. And the Palestinians are weak. And the Israelis are still (comparatively) strong.

They won’t be forever, however. When they aren’t, they should worry that they will reap as they have sowed.

The West Should Just Stop Intervening

By Ian Welsh

On June 12, 2014

Comments

Half a Million Flee Mosul according to estimates. Reading through, there is some fear of ISIS and there is some fear of the fighting in general: which is wise, because the government’s only likely response is to either call out other militias (who can actually fight, unlike the army) or to use air power. Indiscriminate bombing, as in Fallujah, isn’t good for civilians. A lot of people fled because they saw others fleeing. But the lesson of Syria (and pretty much every other war) is this: you don’t want to be caught in a disputed city.

However, many others have been happy to see ISIS conquer Mosul, and are rallying to it.

The bottom line here is that the Iraqi army collapsed: it did not fight.

Some people want the US to go back in. That is a mistake. The Iraqi government was never likely to survive on its own, as constituted, any more than the Afghan government will survive the American pullout. The Iraqi government was artificial, without an actual power based which believed in it enough to fight for it. The same is true, again, in Afghanistan.

You can only keep such tools in power by main, external, force. If you go back into Iraq, you can’t leave because America is incapable of setting up a government which will be able to maintain control: people will not fight and die for the sort of deeply corrupt thugs that America today always puts in charge.

ISIS is a deeply problematic organization, as is the Taliban, but here’s what they have going for them: they believe and they’re willing to fight and die.

The situation in Iraq will be determined on the ground, by those people willing fight and die: the Kurds, ISIS, various non ISIS aligned Sunni militias, and the Shia militias. It will be determined by Iran, who is the only country which could intervene and maintain the peace otherwise.

If the US chooses not to accept this, not to allow this to play out, it will be stuck in Iraq for another ten years, and during that time Iraq will stay destabilized and more and more people will die

There are no good options here, but whatever solution is come to, it must be determined by people who have a real stake in the area, who are willing to fight and die for their beliefs. Only they can impose a peace. There’s a very good chance that it will be a very ugly peace, much like the Taliban imposed in Afghanistan.

So be it. I don’t like it, but there are NO other solutions which are better. American intervention again is not a better option.

If you want to support someone on the ground, support to the Shi-ite militias. They and the Peshmergas, are the ones who will defeat ISIS, if ISIS is defeated. Forget the government, it’s failed. It failed on day one, because it could never keep the peace because no one believed in it.

And stop aiding the insurgents in Syria. Again, this is a cost of the Syrian intervention. ISIS is LOSING to the Syrian forces and Hezbollah and has, in part, been pushed into Iraq. The other reason for them going into Iraq is to cut the Iranian supply lines to Syria and Hezbollah (something the West has no problem with.)

The West must stop intervening in other parts of the world. Getting rid of Qaddafi destabilized not just Libya, but two others. Attacking Afghanistan has destabilized Pakistan. The. Stop. It. The West doesn’t know how to do it successfully. It always makes things worse. Don’t intervene militarily and stop intervening covertly, as in Ukraine.

Just stop.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Egypt: those who make peaceful change impossible —

By Ian Welsh

On June 7, 2014

Comments

To point out the obvious, Egypt’s judges have effectively gone over to the junta. What this means, if you are in the opposition (violent or otherwise) is that if there is another revolution, those judges go. You completely sideline them from power and rip out the heart of the current judiciary, along with ALL senior civil servants (since they sabotaged the previous, democratic government, by making sure basic services like power didn’t work.)

You can’t have a revolution in Egypt which accommodates anyone who was in bed with the previous regime. Sadly, this will include much of the secular opposition, who supported Sisi’s coup. Having proved that they do not believe in democracy, and that they can’t be trusted not to back the military, they will have to be sidelined, though since they have no actual power nor the willingness to engage in violence, they need not be killed (they don’t have the guts, themselves, to pull of a coup.)

This is a basic application of JFK’s maxim that that those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable. I don’t like how the Muslim Brotherhood ruled, but Sisi is far, far worse. Those who oppose him are entirely justified in their use of violence, and have so far been more discriminate in its use that the army or the police.

Egypt’s economic situation will continue to get worse over the long run. The country cannot feed itself, and offers little that the world needs. The fat classes (and in Egypt it easy to tell who is part of the system and who isn’t, because their poor people aren’t fat), will eventually lose power. When they do, those who take control will not be, as Morsi was, willing to make accommodations with the old regime. Nor should they.

Do NOT take Western Help for your “revolution”

By Ian Welsh

On April 24, 2014

Comments

The BBC has admitted that Assad will remain in charge of Syria.

Now I have no mandate for Assad, by all evidence he’s a profoundly evil man who delights in torture as a way to send a message. His excesses in this area are such that I wouldn’t be surprised if he personally gets off on it, but the fact of the matter is that the rebellion has made Syrians worse off. Period.

I will note that when Hezbollah committed its forces I said then that Assad would probably win. What’s worse is that any moron ought to have known that Hezbollah could not allow Assad to fall because if Assad fell, its lifeline to Iran would be severed. The forces which were arrayed against Assad either had to win quickly enough that Hezbollah couldn’t turn the tide, or they had to cut a credible deal with Hezbollah, which due to both ideological reasons and because of the preferences of their backers, they never could. Well, or they had to intervene directly: Western air support as in Libya.

There is no point, if you are are unhappy with your domestic regime, in accepting Western aid to overthrow it at the moment, not unless you’ve got a plan to bite the hand that feeds you. The reason is that the West is no longer exporting prosperity, and hasn’t been for some time. Excepting (sort of, very sort of) China, the last countries to get prosperity from the West were a few Eastern European ones; before that, the Asian Tigers.* Instead the sphere of prosperity based on the West is in contraction, just ask the South of Europe, or Ireland. (The Chinese sphere is another matter, though they have problems too.)

Even if you win your revolution with foreign aid, a la Libya or the Western Ukraine, you aren’t going to be offered a good deal: the Ukraine is still going to get shafted by the IMF to the tune of a 50% cut in pensions, a 50% increase in gas prices even before Russian price increases, government austerity and selling off the crown jewels of energy companies and arable land to foreigners. Libya is a bloody mess: again, however bad Qaddafi was, he was better than the current situation.

There is no real money; no real resources, for prosperity to be spread to new nations by the West and its allies (like Japan). The new money being created is heavily leveraged debt piled on the back of countries who already can’t pay, money they’d be better off without.

So, don’t play with the West. Don’t take their money and aid in overthrowing your corrupt government, unless you know exactly what you’re doing and plan to to turn on them and align with someone else. If you do, your country will be worse off.

Though, perhaps you should take their money. Personally, I mean. You can get rich yourself and then escape your country, if you’re a traitor.

Non-traitors, however, shouldn’t touch Western or Saudi money for revolution.

*One might argue that the West has rarely offered prosperity to those it backs in revolution, Latin Americans would certainly agree, but it’s not quite true: the Koreans did, the Poles did, some other East Europeans. However, now they not only don’t offer prosperity, they offer the prompt austerity and debt driven destruction of your economy.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

As Egypt Continues its hard slide to Despotism

By Ian Welsh

On April 10, 2014

Comments

Here are the numbers:

Since Mr Morsi’s overthrow his Muslim Brotherhood group has been the target of a fierce crackdown by the military-backed authorities. More than a thousand Brotherhood members have been killed and more than 16,000 people, many of them Islamists, have been arrested.

Then, of course, there was the death sentence for 529 protestors for the death of one policeman.

Al-Sisi, the General who overthrow Morsi in a coup is now “running for President.” He has also kept the Gaza crossing closed more often than not.

Meanwhile, the resistance has, actually, gone out of its way to attack targets like police stations, which are, frankly, legitimate targets.

The Muslim Brotherhood, and anyone else, in my view, has an entirely legitimate right, in this case, to violent revolution. A democratically elected government was overthrown in a military coup. The Brotherhood claims not to be behind the violence, but whoever is, is not in the wrong, unless you believe that political violence is never justified. (In which case, Americans, please start paying your taxes to the Crown.)

More to the point, the Brotherhood was legitimately the most popular party in Egypt. They did win the election fairly, after having their preferred candidates disqualified by judges appointed by the old government. They did run the clinics, distribute food and so on in much of the country. The outlawing of the Brotherhood and seizure of all their property was a huge blow for ordinary people, even as it enriched the government. Note that, as in Iran, the Egyptian military is a huge economic power in Egypt, owning many businesses.

The entire situation stinks to high heaven, suggesting that the original demonstrations were allowed to succeed by the military so that they might later undertake a coup. The deep state also, clearly, deliberately sabotaged Morsi at every step, in particular power supplies suddenly became unreliable right after he was elected. Contrary to the army’s propaganda, that’s not something Morsi could have caused, and that it was so is indicated by the fact that right after the coup, the power suddenly became much more reliable again.

The original demonstrations succeeded when the army decided they wouldn’t support the government, remember. Let this be a reminder to you that if you do not have control, physical or ideological, over those who have the ability to inflict violence in your society, you do not actually rule: you are only in charge as long as they want you to be.

Meanwhile, with the largest and most popular party in the country outlawed and 16,000 of its supporters in jail (imagine 16,000 Democrats or Republicans in jail for protesting), I’m sure al-Sisi will cruise to victory and become “President”.

98.1% Approval For Egypt’s New Constitution?

By Ian Welsh

On January 18, 2014

Comments

Is anyone stupid enough to believe this demonstrates the will of the Egyptian people?

Exactly 98.1% of Egyptians said yes to the new constitution in this week’s referendum. The outlawed Muslim brotherhood says it does not recognize the vote, which saw some 20 million, or over 38% of registered voters, participate.

Outlaw the most popular political party, get less than 40% turnout (and who knows if it was even that), and declare yourself winners? And have the Western press echo your propaganda?

98.1%? Could they at least try to pretend the vote was representative? This is USSR style “democracy”.

Egypt bans the Muslim Brotherhood

By Ian Welsh

On September 24, 2013

Comments

This includes seizing all their money and assets. Among other things, this is a humanitarian disaster: who do you think feeds many of the poor in Egypt? Who runs the clinics?

One of my friends worked in Egypt, for the Mubarak regime, for a while. He’s a man with a strong stomach, but they disgusted him. His most telling observation was this: “the middle class are all fat. Obese. Everyone else is skinny.”

I’ll be straightforward: the Muslim Brotherhood has the right to resist this violently. They’ll probably lose, but they won the election fairly and the results of a democratic election were thrown out by a military coup. You really can’t get any more legitimate reason to commit violence than that, except straight-up genocide. So I don’t want to hear hand-wringing when the bombs start going off: it is the logical consequence of what the military has done, which includes gunning down unarmed civilians in the street.

As for the “liberals” who supported the coup, they have disgraced themselves. If the Muslim Brotherhood or some much nastier successors do win, you can be sure liberals will have NO meaningful influence in Egypt’s government. Perhaps they had very little under the Brotherhood, and certainly the constitution was unfair, but this was a coup, and they supported it. It will not be forgotten, least of all because a lot of blood has been spilled and far more will be.

(Why did the Muslim Brotherhood win the election and not liberals? Because they had consistently opposed Mubarak and paid the price for it, and because they, not liberals, fed the poor and cared for the sick.)

Putin Stings America

By Ian Welsh

On September 4, 2013

Comments

I bring to your attention these two beauties:

“We have a contract for the delivery of the S-300s. We have supplied some of the components, but the delivery hasn’t been completed. We have suspended it for now. But if we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world.”

Translation: if you bomb Syria against our wishes, we will make sure it’s much harder for you to bomb other countries in the future.

6. On U.S. failure to bring Snowden home to face justice:

“Representatives of the American special services — and I hope they won’t be angry — but they could have been more professional, and the diplomats as well. After they found out that he was flying to us, and that he was flying as a transit passenger, there was pressure from all sides — from the Americans, from the Europeans — instead of just letting him go to a country where they could operate easily.”

Translation: Your secret services are incompetent. Why not let him fly somewhere where you can send a drone, or helicopter gunships or covert operatives?

Of course, that’s why Snowden went first to China and then to Russia: they are countries that the US can’t drone without huge repercussions. Most countries can’t do a damn thing if the US sends in drones or gunships, they just have to take it, they have no real retaliatory ability.

Putin’s a profoundly evil man, as with most world leaders, but he’s also one of the few who is also frighteningly competent.

As for Syria, it is now clear that Obama will almost certainly get his war resolution, unless there’s a huge caucus revolt amongst Republicans. The Ba’ath will fight, they have no choice because they believe (correctly, in my opinion) that if they lose their families and communities will be slaughtered. Syria may not have the best Russian AA weapons, but it has better weaponry than any other enemy the US has faced in decades, and has Iranian and Hizbollah support (ie. competent advisers and troops with which to use those weapons.)