Is this how Marines really see the media? Ya think?

The New York Times excerpts from a memo of "talking points" that Marine officers prepared after a Time Magazine reporter, Tim McGirk, inquired about the killing of 24 Iraqi men, women, and children in Haditha in 2005. The Iraqis were allegedly killed by Marines after a roadside bomb killed an infantryman and wounded two others. At the time they wrote the memo, as the Times writes, the "Marine officers assumed the Iraqi deaths occurred during combat and were justified, if regrettable."

Some excerpts from the memo as it does seem to reveal how the Marines see the American media in Iraq.

McGirk: How many marines were killed and wounded in the I.E.D. attack that morning?

Memo: If it bleeds, it leads. This question is McGirk’s attempt to get good bloody gouge on the situation. He will most likely use the information he gains from this answer as an attention gainer.

•

McGirk: Were there any officers?

Memo: By asking if there was an officer on scene the reporter may be trying to identify a point of blame for lack of judgment. If there was an officer involved, then he may be able to have his My Lai massacre pinned on that officer’s shoulders. ...

In the reporter’s eyes, military officers may represent the U.S. government and enlisted marines may represent the American People. Given the current political climate in the U.S. at this time concerning the Iraq war and the current administration’s conduct of the war, the reporter would most likely seek to discredit the U.S. government (one of our officers) and expose victimization of the American people by the hand of the government (the enlisted marines under the haphazard command of our “rogue officer.”) Unfortunately for McGirk, this is not the case.

One common tactic used by reporters is to spin a story in such a way that it is easily recognized and remembered by the general population through its association with an event that the general population is familiar with or can relate to. For example, McGirk’s story will sell if it can be spun as “Iraq’s My Lai massacre.” Since there was not an officer involved, this attempt will not go very far.

We must be on guard, though, of the reporter’s attempt to spin the story to sound like incidents from well-known war movies, like “Platoon.”

In “Platoon,” Sergeant Barnes, the movie’s antihero, is depicted as a no-nonsense, war-haggard platoon sergeant who knows how to get things done in the bloody jungles of Vietnam — and it ain’t always pretty. During one scene, Sergeant Barnes is shown on the verge of committing war crimes in front of his platoon by threatening to kill women and children as a means of interrogation. This is a classic “runaway sergeant” storyline wherein the audience is supposed to be sickened by the sergeant’s brutality and equally sickened by the traumatic effects war has on soldiers. This schema is especially fruitful for Mr. McGirk because if he tries to adapt our situation to this model it simultaneously exposes a “war crime cover-up” and shows the deteriorative (albeit exaggerated) effects of war on U.S. marines (the best of the best), which could be expanded by the general press as a testament for why the U.S. should pull out of Iraq.

[Colonel Chessani later shortened this answer to “No.”]

Eventually the Marine Corps would charge three enlisted men with murder and four officers with dereliction of duty pursuant to the killings. It was in the course of this trial, still ongoing, that this memo surfaced. There's more in the Times article so check it out.

More evidence Al Qaeda in Iraq is losing its grip

Time Magazine's Joe Klein writes from Baquba, as he writes, "the centerpiece of the current U.S. offensive in Iraq" where, he writes, "an estimated 400 to 500 al-Qaeda fighters were estimated to be in the city when the U.S. forces attacked on Monday." As he reports:

A lieutenant colonel named Bruce Antonia told [Lt. Gen. Raymond] Odierno about preparing to attack the Buhritz neighborhood a few nights earlier when he was approached by local Sunni inusurgents—members, they said, of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades—who were streaming out of the neighborhood. "They said they'd been fighting al-Qaeda but had run out of ammunition and asked us to supply them. We told them, 'Show us where AQ is and we'll fight them.'" The insurgents did and the neighborhood was cleared.

A second lieutenant colonel named Avanulis Smiley picked up the story from there, "Sir, they've also showed us seven buried IED sites. They gave us specific information—description of the houses, gate color, tree trunks."

After the briefing I asked Colonel Antonia if he'd asked the Sunnis why they had turned against al-Qaeda. "They said it was religious stuff," he said. "AQI demanded that the women wear abayas, no smoking and they preached an extreme version of Islam in the mosque. They'd also spent the winter without food and fuel because of the violence al-Qaeda was causing. One guy said to me, 'We fought against you because you invaded our country and you're infidels. But you treat us with more dignity than al-Qaeda,' and he said they'd continue to work with us. I've been involved in many operations here and this is a first—usually everybody's shooting at us. This is the first time we've had any of them on our side." (In web postings, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade has denied it is cooperating with the Americans.)

Odierno later told me similar anti-al-Qaeda rebellions were happening throughout the country, including some neighborhoods of Baghdad. "Iraqis notice things. They noticed what happened when we began to support the Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda in al-Anbar. And al-Qaeda seems to have overplayed its hand."

At a second briefing, at a bunkered, joint U.S.-Iraqi command post in the middle of Baquba, the news was less optimistic. An Iraqi General said that he was pretty certain that the al-Qaeda leadership had slipped away, north to Tikrit and Samarra, and that many of the fighters were burying their equipment before they left town, hoping to return—as always—when the Americans left. "Well, it's up to you to make sure they don't come back," Odierno said.

Indeed.

As I would think it must be clear to anyone with even the most remote access to the American media: the U.S. cannot be counted on to stay long in Iraq.

Contrary to what our enemies both at home and abroad might have you believe, the vast majority of Americans see their country as a republic not an empire. Those who supported the Iraq invasion saw its end-goal as the removal of a dictator who would have happily supplied America's enemies refuge, training, and yes, weapons of mass destruction.

Is there anyone who disputes the notion that, at the very least, Saddam wished he had WMDs? Why else would he have subjected his people to more than a decade of punishing sanctions? Why else would he have played the games he did with the U.N. weapons inspectors?

Anyway, it's important, I think that Iraqis at least grasp this fundamental American reality: Americans will not stay in Iraq forever; in fact, the sooner they can leave, the better.

Daniel Pearl's parents on Daniel's legacy

UCLA’s Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel, background, works to build Muslim-Jewish relations.
(Stephen Osman / LAT), September 1, 2006


The parents of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped while he pursued a story on radical Islam in Pakistan and then beheaded for being Jewish spoke to the Los Angeles Times about what they want people to take away from their son's story, now memorialized in the film "A Mighty Heart" starring Angelina Jolie.

"We are hoping the movie will bring curiosity about Danny," said Judea Pearl, a UCLA professor who started a foundation with his wife to promote greater cultural understanding in the wake of his son's death. "We want people to learn about his legacy. We can't let this happen again."

As the Times continued:

As sophisticated people who understand the power of media, they've been searching since their son's death for Hollywood allies who will help them get their message out.

"I see many celebrities involved in social causes," Judea Pearl said. "Many them are interested in fighting diseases and responding to natural disasters. Very few, perhaps even none, is addressing the tsunami of hatred that has swept our planet in the past decades.

"It's not a fight of medicine. It's a fight of ideology. Of ideals. I wish we could see more interest in that struggle."

The Daniel Pearl Foundation has undertaken several projects, including holding a music day in October with concerts around the globe; offering internships at various U.S. newspapers to foreign journalists, particularly those from South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa; and sponsoring an annual lecture series at UCLA and Stanford to discuss ways to further cultural understanding. . .

"I never let myself think this is a therapy," he said. "If I had known this is a therapy, I would have stopped doing it. I'm doing it because it's effective. We're trying to harness the goodwill and energy to contain the tsunami."

Ruth Pearl says, "I worry about the next generation. If we don't address this now, what will become of us? What will become of our children?

Incidentally, Muslims - and non-Muslims too - might check out what Judea Pearl says regarding the future of Islam. In this FrontPageMagazine.com article he addresses those who suggest that Islam itself is the problem, who insist that there can never be such a thing as a good-neighborly Islam.

An Iranian American Jew sorts out what exactly that means

A reader, freelance journalist Karmel Melamed, sent me a link to his wonderful blog Iranian American Jews & Middle East Affairs.

While his focal point is that of an Iranian American Jew, his message seems to me to be pretty universal: the struggle we all go through to figure out who we are - what family values and traditions we want to retain in life versus those we will have to free ourselves from; the lessons we need to learn from our collective experience, and how we should use this knowledge to make ourselves stronger and healthier as opposed to weaker and more victim-like.

To give you an idea of his perspective, here are some excerpts from his interview with Tania Eshgahoff, an Iranian-American Jewish pianist in New York who has performed at Carnegie Hall.

Your music is obviously Persian influenced, why have you as a young Jew who has been raised in the U.S. with so exposure to Western culture still decided to embrace Persian music?

I get asked that question often and I can not really explain it. At age 7, I was attached to Persian melodies. I wanted to constantly repeat the rhythms of the Santour, but I wanted it to be symphonic. I remember when no one was around, I would “get into it.” I mean really lose myself in the music-- I could hear violins and deep bass drum rolls. I could hear a harpist play a chord and French horns add to each measure. But it was very frustrating because I had these sounds in my mind but did not know what it meant and why it is when I play my piano that all that comes out is piano notes. Persian music has been my preface for everything. It sings to me and connects deep in the root of who I am. I am learning maybe it is because of all of those minor chords, how can you not get emotional from that.

. . . Most Persian parents frown upon their children going into careers that are not the traditional professions of medicine or law. What reaction did you receive from friends and relatives when you told them about your desire to pursue a career in music?

Interesting question and it is a bitter-sweet answer. It was not encouraged as a life-long career. Even now, I do face certain criticism and judgments about playing on a big stage. The appropriateness of pursing ones art as a Persian-Jewish woman is mixed with the idea of a Persian Jewish woman giving up and compromising marriage. I think many who feel that way, did not have opportunities to explore what is deep with in them. They only know the obligations, joys and commitment to family, not pursuing this inner-child music obsession. I wish children would begin to have the opportunity, to feel what it is like when your music is being played by these wonderful instruments, among hundreds and hundreds of souls sitting in the audience. You learn that only you, yourself can decide how badly you want something. If you work hard at it and surround yourself by people who support that, you will make it!

. . . Do you think mainstream America is ready to embrace Middle Eastern and Persian influenced music amidst the threat of terrorism coming from that part of the world?

Living in New York City, I find myself in a world that is very accepting of people’s heritage. New York is incredibly cosmopolitan, it is a cultural Mecca. So I never feel a hesitation but more a celebration of this type of music. Non-Persians are so moved that they can understand this music. They feel that they have just visited Iran-- they are interested, and open to learning. It has a Middle Eastern mysticism but the orchestration is very western and classical. And young Persians are a bit enthralled that their parents’ old-folk music is in a form that is very contemporary for them to embrace and feel proud that this is their heritage. In fact a network here in New York has been inquiring about the work I do and find it interesting that there are Jewish Iranians here in New York making beautiful music and art, so different from the headlines we are seeing today.

Anyway, anyone struggling with wanting to retain their traditional identity in a modern world should check out his blog whenever you're feeling that you're the only person going through this.

Live from Baghdad: New Sunni alliance forming to oppose Al Qaeda in Iraq

USA Today reports, er, yesterday, that more Sunnis are joining the fight:

More than 10 Iraqi tribes in the Baghdad area have reached agreements with U.S. and Iraqi forces for the first time to oppose al-Qaeda, raising the U.S. military's hopes that a trend started in western Iraq is spreading here.
Some of the groups, which have members who fought alongside al-Qaeda in the past, have been providing useful intelligence to U.S. forces about their former allies, according to the U.S. military.

"They know where they live and who they are," said Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes in the capital area.

General Petraeus speaks to the London Times from Baghdad

Here are some of the excerpts his interview which took place June 10th.

What about the US military operation currently underway in Diyala province (northeast of Baghdad)?

"Zarqawi (the former al-Qaeda leader in Iraq) stated that he intended for Baquba (the capital of Diyala) to become the new capital of his caliphate in 2006 shortly before he was killed. The downward spiral of Baquba began in late summer last year. You get a cycle where al-Qaeda moves in, they put down some roots, they intimidate the security forces, which means the security forces and the Coalition get less intelligence which means their operations are less effective. It just sort of goes down. We have seen it in other provinces. As al-Qaeda were pushed out of Anbar province this year in mid-March, more of them moved across to Diyala."

Are you concerned about the tactic of arming groups that previously opposed you?

"You want locals to establish local security. In Anbar Province tribes have always been important. You can't ignore the tribes, they are of enormous importance? If you have a police support unit, you put them through a 40-hour course we call them police auxiliary in the US. You want to tie them in. Get them on the payroll. Then you can get them to enlist in the army. Those are working. They swear allegiance to Iraq. Those oaths mean something to people who put premium on honour."

What about al-Qaeda?

As they were run out of Euphrates river valley they moved east. There will be big fights in some of these areas. An awful lot of their foreign fighters come through Syria. Eighty or so foreign fighters come through a month. That does not sound like much but every one of those is a potential suicide bomber. We think that 80 to 90 per cent of suicide bombers are foreign fighters.

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq."

What about political reconciliation at the national level?

“Some of legislation is more important than others. For example the oil law has an enormous far-reaching long-term effect. The idea of enshrining in law the idea that the oil revenues of a country are to be shared equitably with all Iraqis. That is a very significant development. It is huge. It is in the framework. They are very, very close on this. Long term it is hugely important both to the economic revival of Iraq and to keep the country together as one.

"Awful Insurgents" as opposed to, um, Minutemen

Hamas speaks

And now for the Hamas side of what just happened in Gaza from Ahmed Yousef, political advisor to Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister via the New York Times:

THE events in Gaza over the last few days have been described in the West as a coup. In essence, they have been the opposite. Eighteen months ago, our Hamas Party won the Palestinian parliamentary elections and entered office under Prime Minister Ismail Haniya but never received the handover of real power from Fatah, the losing party. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has now tried to replace the winning Hamas government with one of his own, returning Fatah to power while many of our elected members of Parliament languish in Israeli jails. That is the real coup.

From the day Hamas won the general elections in 2006 it offered Fatah the chance of joining forces and forming a unity government. It tried to engage the international community to explain its platform for peace. It has consistently offered a 10-year cease-fire with the Israelis to try to create an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences. Hamas even adhered to a unilateral cease-fire for 18 months in an effort to normalize the situation on the ground. None of these points appear to have been recognized in the press coverage of the last few days.

Nor has it been evident to many people in the West that the civil unrest in Gaza and the West Bank has been precipitated by the American and Israeli policy of arming elements of the Fatah opposition who want to attack Hamas and force us from office. For 18 months we have tried to find ways to coexist with Fatah, entering into a unity government, even conceding key positions in the cabinet to their and international demands, negotiating up until the last moment to try to provide security for all of our people on the streets of Gaza.

Sadly, it became apparent that not all officials from Fatah were negotiating in good faith. There were attempts on Mr. Haniya’s life last week, and eventually we were forced into trying to take control of a very dangerous situation in order to provide political stability and establish law and order.

Ok, so this is the Hamas view of what just happened. So how does Hamas see the way forward? What should we expect of them? Yousef continues:

We have begun disarming some of the drug dealers and the armed gangs and we hope to restore a sense of security and safety to the citizens of Gaza. We want to get children back to school, get basic services functioning again, and provide long-term economic gains for our people.

Ok, now what about this stated goal of Hamas, that its purpose is to take back all the land under Israel's control, not just the West Bank and Gaza? I quote here what they say in their 1988 Covenant:

The Islamic Resistance Movement [aka Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

Not surprisingly, the Hamas spokesman Yousef doesn't say much on this issue:

We continue to believe that there is still a chance to establish a long-term truce. But this will not happen unless the international community fully engages with Hamas.

Any further attempts to marginalize us, starve our people into submission or attack us militarily will prove that the United States and Israeli governments are not genuinely interested in seeing an end to the violence.

Unfortunately, a willingness to negotiate a long-term truce does not exactly translate into recognizing Israel's right to exist. But perhaps if Hamas really could stop the rocket launchings, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and other types of incursions into Israel, maybe there could be room for discussion, even if the end result could only be a long-term truce as opposed to full recognition.

But, suppose for a moment now that Hamas really did go this far, that it really could declare and enforce a truce?

How long do you suppose it would take for a new faction to arise? For disgruntled members to say that by virtue of such a truce, the Hamas leaders only desecrated the Waqf - that is the Hamas - covenant? This seems to me to be a real stumbling block.

Anyone have any ideas on how to solve this fundamental problem? Check out the source documents on which the Hamas Covenant portends to be based. Maybe therein lies some kind of solution.

Bangladesh

The Earth is God's Canvas., originally uploaded by Catch the dream.

Here is last night's preview into today's Battle for Baquba in Iraq

Last night, American blogger Michael Yon wrote from Iraq:

Today Al Qaeda (AQ) is strong, but their welcome is tenuous in some regions as many Iraqis grow weary enough of the violence that trails them to forcibly evict AQ from some areas they’d begun to feel at home in. Meanwhile, our military, having adapted from eager fire-starting to more measured firefighting, after coming in so ham-fisted early on, has found agility in the new face of this war. Not lost on the locals was the fact that the Coalition wasn’t alone in failing to keep the faith of its promises to Iraqis.

Whereas we failed with the restoration of services and government, AQ has raped too many women and boys in Anbar Province, and cut-off too many heads everywhere else for anyone here to believe their claims of moral superiority. And they don’t even try to get the power going or keep the markets open or build schools, playgrounds and clinics for the children. In addition to destroying all of these resources, and murdering the Iraqis who work at or patronize them, AQ attacks people in mosques and churches, too. Thus, to those listening into the wind, an otherwise imperceptible tang in the atmosphere signals the time for change is at hand.

And so on the eve (again, that's last night, folks) of what portends to be a major battle, Yon continues:

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.

The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cutoff escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.

We will go in on foot and fight from house to house if needed. We will shoot rockets into their hiding spaces, and our snipers will shoot them in their heads and chests. This is where all that talk of cancer and big ideas of what should be or could be done will smash head on against the searing reality of combat.

These words flow on the eve of a great battle, but are on hold until the attack is well underway. Nothing is certain. I am here and have been all year. We are in trouble, but we have a great General. The only one, I have long believed, who can lead the way out of this morass. Iraq is not hopeless. Iraq can stand again but first it must cast off these demons. And some of the demons must be killed.

Go to his website to stay tuned and read more of his dispatches from the front.

Can the Senate Intelligence Committee use harsher interrogation techniques than the CIA?

Ok, I admit, it's not laugh-out-loud funny but in today's New York Times story about the confirmation hearings of John Rizzo, the nominee for the C.I.A.'s general counsel, a former colleague, A.B. Krongard, reportedly told the Times: “He’ll be the piñata,” referring to the Mexican doll that children beat to the point of breaking so they can get at the candy inside.

This is a funny analogy to use, because later in the article, when the Times reports on the speculation regarding what exactly Rizzo will say about the torture techniques he approved when he acted as the liaison between the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, the newspaper writes:

Mr. Krongard said deciding the limits of interrogation for Al Qaeda’s top operatives was not easy. “Can you slap someone in the face? Maybe,” he said. “But can you hit them as hard as you can? Maybe not.”

Get it? No?

Well imagine if Krongard had described KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, as having been treated like a piñata by C.I.A. agents. Now do you get it?

As I said, it's not ha-ha funny, but there is a laughable sub-text here, no?

Palestine: Is reality on the horizon?

Fouad Ajami, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and author of The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs and the Iraqis in Iraq, writes in today's New York Times about the Palestinians:

The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

As he continues:

The political maxim that people get the leaders they deserve must be reckoned too cruel to apply to the Palestinians. Before Hamas, for four decades, the vainglorious Yasir Arafat refused to tell his people the basic truths of their political life. Amid the debacles, he remained eerily joyous; he circled the globe, offering his people the false sense that they could be spared the consequences of terrible decisions.

The Arab states, too, says Ajami, must bear some responsibility for having contributed to the delusions. As he writes:

The Arab cavalry was always on the way, the Arab treasure was always a day away, and there was thus no need for the Palestinians to pay tribute to necessity. In recent years, the choice was starkly posed: it was either statehood or a starring role on Al Jazeera, and the young “boys of the stones” and their leaders opted for the latter.

The Palestinians, Ajami suggests, are not the dolphins they've been made out to be. As he writes:

It has long been a cherished legend of the Palestinians, and a proud claim, that they would not kill their own, that there would be no fratricide in their world. The cruelty we now see — in both Gaza and the West Bank — bears witness that the Palestinians have run through the consolations that had been there for them in a history of adversity. . .

We must not overdo the distinction between the “secularism” of Fatah and the Islamism of Hamas. In the cruel streets and refugee camps of the Palestinians, this is really a distinction without a difference. . .

It is idle to think that Gaza could be written off as a Hamas dominion while Fatah held its own in the towns of the West Bank. The abdication and the anarchy have damaged both Palestinian realms. Nablus in the West Bank is no more amenable to reason than is Gaza; the writ of the pitiless preachers and gunmen is the norm in both places.

Amazingly, Ajami still holds out hope that the Palestinians will finally grasp their reality:

For decades, Arab society granted the Palestinians everything and nothing at the same time. The Arab states built worlds of their own, had their own priorities, dreaded and loathed the Palestinians as outsiders and agitators, but left them to the illusion that Palestine was an all-consuming Arab concern.

Now the Palestinians should know better. The center of Arab politics has shifted from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, a great political windfall has come to the lands of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, vast new wealth due to the recent rises in oil prices, while misery overwhelms the Palestinians. No Arabs wait for Palestine anymore; they have left the Palestinians to the ruin of their own history.

The Arab states, says Ajami, should also finally be forced to acknowledge the role they played in fomenting this mess:

The rise of Hamas in Gaza should concentrate the minds of the custodians of power in the Arab world. Palestine, their old alibi, the cause with which they diverted the attention of their populations from troubles at home, has become a nightmare in its own right. An Arab debt is owed the Palestinians — the gift of truth and candor as well as material help.

Curiously, he leaves the Quartet (the U.S., E.U., U.N., and Russia) - and even Israel - almost entirely out of the discussion of the way forward. What he seems to be saying here is that the Palestinians need not look to anyone but themselves and their brotherly Arab nations to find the way out of their misery.

While Ajami's advice seems reasonable enough to me, I bet it will continue to be dismissed by "pro-Palestinians" because it will be perceived as being "anti-Palestinian" (i.e., "pro-Israel") or "anti-Arab" (i.e., "pro-Israel" or perhaps even "neocon").

To paraphrase Bernard Lewis, we live in a world where if you see the Palestinians as ultimately capable of solving their own problems using their own enterprise, this is not a "pro-Palestinian" view. To be "pro-Palestinian" in other words, you have to see them solely as victims, as a childlike people who have only been exploited.

Darfur, Sudan

Sudan - Darfur, originally uploaded by InternationalRescueCommittee.

She apparently gets it too. See posts below.

Darfur, Sudan

dsc_0107, originally uploaded by aheavens.

Even somebody this young appears to grasp the horror of what's going on there.

The world's failing states - Who are they and why are they failing?

Foreign Policy has published their annual survey of the world's failed states.

According to the FP experts, the traits these states all have in common include rampant corruption, predatory elites which monopolizes power, and deep ethnic or religious divisions.

The world's top 20 failed states, in order of FP's ranking are: Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Ivory Coast, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Afghanistan, Guinea, Central African Republic, Haiti, Pakistan, North Korea, Burma, Uganda, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Burundi, and Timor-Leste.

Many of the world's most unstable states, also live in the world's worst neighborhoods. As FP reports:

It is no coincidence that many of the world’s failing states tend to cluster together. Porous borders, cultural affinity, and widespread underdevelopment often bind populations. And when some live in a failing state, their woes can quickly spill over into a neighbor’s backyard.

The violence in Darfur has created the most extreme ripple effect. The Sudanese government has been accused of backing rebel groups in both Chad and the Central African Republic, creating hundreds of thousands of additional refugees. Vast camps throughout the region are vulnerable to the violent, marauding militias that have terrorized Darfur for the past four years.

The absence of religious freedom it seems is also a marker of failing states. As FP writes:

Vulnerable states display a greater degree of religious intolerance, according to scores calculated by the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. Persecution of religious minorities in Bangladesh, Burma, Iran, and Uzbekistan has deprived millions of faithful of the freedom to follow their beliefs. But religious repression is often nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to muzzle the country’s civil society.

Will there be one or two Palestines?

In its Week in Review section, the New York Times had an interesting article yesterday that explored the possibility that two Palestines might emerge as a result of the Hamas take-over of Gaza. As the Times writes:

For the first time in the history of the Palestinians’ fight for nationhood, there seemed a real possibility that two Palestines rather than one might emerge — one in Gaza, dominated by Hamas, the other in the West Bank, led by Fatah.

The Times provides some background on why this split may have happened:

They have always had distinct traits, culturally and geographically — the West Bank supporting a landlocked urban and agricultural society, Gaza facing the sea.

Those differences increased after the creation of Israel in 1948, when Gaza fell under the administration of Egypt and the West Bank was annexed by Jordan.

Egypt treated Gaza as a Palestinian enclave and encouraged a strong sense of Palestinian identity. Many Gazans who studied in Egypt during those years were influenced, in turn, by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is to establish Islamic theocracies across the Arab world.

Back in Gaza, some of those men founded Hamas in 1987.

Jordan, on the other hand, suppressed Palestinian nationalism in favor of Jordanian identity and Palestinians in the West Bank were more influenced by the secular societies of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, where many went to study. Others traveled even further abroad, bringing back a liberal view of the world.

During the 1990s, before the roads were closed, it was Gazans who generally had to travel to the West Bank in search of work, as opposed to the other way around. This was because in spite of Gaza's potential as a seaside resort town, it is the West Bank which has the more thriving economy as given that it is home to many Christian and Jewish holy sites, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Jericho, it has a well-established tourism industry.

As the Times continues, the economic hardships in Gaza forced many Palestinians in the territory to look to religion - and to Hamas for comfort.

Fatah recognized Hamas' increasing influence in Gaza, and of course tried to rein it in, even resorting to torturing, killing and humiliating its leaders in an effort to get Hamas under its control. Hamas was increasingly seen as the underdog champion of the Palestinians, as group that would suffer enormous costs to fight for their rights, and eventually it was Hamas who Palestinians voted in at the polls, not Fatah.

But as the Times goes, on, the Palestinians, like all publics, are fickle:

Hamas’s military victory last week obscures the fact that Fatah has been gaining political support in Gaza over the past year, according to Mouin Rabbani, an analyst at the International Crisis Group in Jordan. He says this may be because a larger percentage of Gazans depend on Fatah finances to make a living. Hamas, meanwhile, has been gaining support in the West Bank because Palestinians there are discouraged by Fatah’s corruption and policy failures, Mr. Rabbani says.

Moreover, as the Times continues, many ordinary Palestinians are by now disgusted with both parties, seeing their conflict as nothing more than an out-of-control family feud that portends to destroy any hope of an economically viable future.

This is the reality, the Times suggests, that may in the end, work to force some sort of reunification to occur:

Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, meanwhile, recognize that Fatah alone holds the lifeline of Western financial support.

So if military dominance gives Hamas bargaining power, the economic imperative of a unified Palestinian body politic argues, in the end, for some accommodation with Fatah.

Europe not in danger of becoming Eurabia

Or so says Philip Jenkins, Penn State professor and author of God's Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe's Religious Crisis.

As he writes in Foreign Policy :

The West is awash with fear of the Islamization of Europe. The rise of Islam, many warn, could transform the continent into “Eurabia,” a term popularized by Harvard historian Niall Ferguson and other pundits. “A youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a senescent Europe,” Ferguson has predicted. Such grim prophecies may sell books, but they ignore reality. For all we hear about Islam, Europe remains a stronger Christian fortress than people realize. What’s more, it is showing little sign of giving ground to Islam or any other faith for that matter.

The evidence for this thesis, Professor Jenkins writes, is that:

Ironically, after centuries of rebelling against religious authority, the coming of Islam is also reviving political issues most thought extinct in Europe, including debates about the limits of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to proselytize. And in all these areas, controversies that originate in a Muslim context inexorably expand or limit the rights of Christians, too. If Muslim preachers who denounce gays must be silenced, then so must charismatic Christians. At the same time, any laws that limit blasphemous assaults on the image of Mohammed must take account of the sensibilities of those who venerate Jesus.

The result has been a rediscovery of the continent’s Christian roots, even among those who have long disregarded it, and a renewed sense of European cultural Christianity. Jürgen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.” Europe may be confronting the dilemmas of a truly multifaith society, but with Christianity poised for a comeback, it is hardly on the verge of becoming an Islamic colony.

Is Al Qaeda really in the Sahel area of Africa?

_SC_5312, originally uploaded by nygus.

If anyone has any information on this that doesn't emanate from the U.S. State Department, I'd be interested to know.

Even the Arab states appear to have had it with Hamas

And maybe even Palestinians in general.

No less an authority than Al Jazeera reports:

Arab League foreign ministers gathered for an emergency session in Cairo to discuss how to deal with the Palestinian split after Hamas gained full control of the Gaza Strip.

A statement from the 22 members of the group condemned what it called "the criminal acts recently committed in Gaza".

"We are seeking a national unity in Palestine and we stand against the events that we have witnessed in the last days," Moussa said after the six hour meeting in the Egyptian capital.

He said there must be an "immediate and full halt" to the violence.

The Arab states expressed their backing of President Mahmoud Abbas and the elected assembly of the Palestinian Authority - that is, they did not seem to be willing to recognize Hamas militant takeover of Gaza as a legitimate route to power.

As Al-Jazeera went on to sum up what seemed to be the Arab states' overriding sentiment:

Egypt's state MENA news agency quoted Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, as asking the Arab League in dismay whether Palestinians had forgotten a commitment made in Mecca earlier this year to "unite and never to fight".

"Today the Palestinians have come close to putting by themselves the last nail in the coffin of the Palestinian cause," he said.

The WSJ's assessment of why the Palestinians used their opportunity for statehood to fight a civil war in Gaza

The editors write in today's on-line edition of the Wall Street Journal:

Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.

This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.

That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.