The Quasi-Pundit

An Old Kind of Change

2011-03-03T18:59:00.000-05:00

With the ongoing wave of transformative change sweeping across the Middle East, we hear the voices of the usual suspects calling for Israel to join the wave and sign away a major chunk of its territory, before it's too late.

Yes, you heard that right! While millions of Arabs are rising to kick out the same kind of autocrats who western liberals have been siding with over any issue rather than with Israel, the same western lierals are calling upon Israel to create the same kind of archaic, cleptocracy that Arabs are finally trying to rid themselves off.

Why should Israel do it? So when the citizens of 'independent Palestine' do away with Abbas, they will nullify any written agreement because 'Israel should have made peace with the Arab people, not with their dictators'. The same line of argument goes for Syria. Assad's Alawite autocracy will fall from grace this generation, so why should Israel simply shit away it's most important strategical asset?

Truth be told, the land for peace paradigm is dead. The Palestinians are looking at a dimilitarized autonomy for many years, not a state.

-QP

Dan Carlin: Common Sense

2011-03-03T13:07:00.000-05:00

Dan's latest episode of his current affairs has been out for a few days, but unfortunately I haven't found the time to blog about it.

In this episode Dan talks about the turmoil in Wisconsin, where the governor's attempt to weaken/destroy the public unions, has been met with a wave of theatrics that is undemocratic to say the least. Canadians, imagine that every single member of the Conservative caucus fled across the border to New Hampshire to avoid voting on the new budget!

It seems that Dan agrees with the Republicans on this issue, but can't really bring himself to admit it. So he attacks the Republicans for using demagoguery in order to weaken their political opponents (the public unions are unashamedly Democrat) and refusing to look at the area that really needs cuts, Defense. While Dan is write to a large extent, it doesn't take away from the current issue. Public unions do need busting. They have become such an influential player in the domestic politics of many countries and they are sucking at the public teat. Dan's comment on police officers notwithstanding, as they are not under Gov. Walker's plan.

The teachers however, are in fact, sucking at the public teat. Their salaries are increasing, they are practically unfireable and the public education system is down the drain.

In the second part of the show, Dan addresses defense cuts. He does not take an isolationist position, but rather suggests that the defense spendings should be restrained according to some yardstick. He gives Britain's naval calculus as an example. The problem is that such a yardstick is very difficult to create nowadays. America does not merely need to contend with a few major powers on a roughly equal scale of development. A buck spent by China on the military is not equivalent to a buck spent by the US.

I also don't think England's phase-out of the empire was very graceful. England has consciously gave up on a once glorious empire with a failed welfare state that destroyed its industries and put it on a fast track to catch up with Albania as Europe's poorest country. That's not before they managed to screw up almost all of their dominions (where white Anglo-saxons did not live, of course).

Otherwise, an interesting show as always!

-QP

Video - Fierce Battles in Barga

2011-03-03T00:02:00.002-05:00

A New Kind of American Assertiveness

2011-03-02T23:25:00.000-05:00

The Obama administration has been receiving quite a lot of flack with regards to their conduct on recent upheaval in the Middle East. Some of my favourite writers, such as Barry Rubin, have been claiming that the administration is completely oblivious to the ways of the Middle East and are incapable to get a clear read on it. It's hard to argue with the facts...

But what would you say to the idea that the administration, and American foreign policy in general, simply does not care for the ways of the Middle East and don't care to get a clear read of it?

So the execution is not smooth? Who said they care much for a smooth execution?

Doesn't history show us that American foreign policy is cynical and self serving?

So now I will tie it to what's been going on in the Middle East recently.
America's position has been on a downward trend for quite some time. While mediocre Arab despots such as Hosni Mubarak, the Sauds, and the al-Khalifa's of Bahrain are perceived as 'carrying out the imperial will', they are quite far from that. America's Arab allies have been dragging their feet on almost any issue of strategical importance to the United States such as normalizing relations with Israel, or combating radical Islamic terrorism that is stemming from their own societies. It's not that they have been doing that just to piss off the Americans, they simply don't want to touch those uneasy nerve and risk popular discontent. Additionally, their hatred towards Israel has been the cornerstone of their entire raison d'etre. They are far too comfortable sticking to old habits than risking a confrontation on these issues with their poor, uneducated rabble that is their constituency.

So America has been bolstering their regimes while getting limited results. Middle Eastern despots thought that they figured America! They thought that they managed to convince the poor, silly and naive Americans that they are the best that America can get. That if they were to go, all hell will break loose. Well what good are the Sauds to America if they are not much help on the Iraq issue, they are horrible on human rights and the only reason their oil keeps flowing is because of mass American presence? What good is Hosni when he cannot foster deeper economic ties with Israel and limits economic development to a class of his cronies?

So America has decided to send a message: 'So you want us to keep stuffing your coffers because you think we are afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? well what would you say if we don't?'

In Bahrain, the US has a very sensitive position. It's the base of the 5th fleet, which is responsible for the very strategic Persian gulf. Bahrain will not fall, the Americans will merely force to king to do what ever is required to calm things down, or figure out who can, and let him and his followers do whatever they please with the king's rotting corpse. America will not evacuate their naval base, not on someone else's terms.

As for Mubarak I don't think that there are many people to genuinely feel sorry for the guy. He had his run, he served his purpose. There are no loyalties, it's strictly business. If by letting the military junta that is now formally in charge get rid him they are buying stability, redirecting animosity and getting some good PR on Hosni's expense, they will do it!

The usual argument against this strategy is that the alternatives will be worse. The Muslim Brotherhood will take over Egypt and Bin Laden will take over Saudi Arabia. Well, there isn't a heck of a lot that a week long bombing campaign cannot achieve. If Riyadh dalls to the hands of radical Islamists, there will be an insurrection among the Shia population that lives in the oil producing regions.

So are we seeing a new kind of America? No, it's the good old bad America.

When Saddam had a dispute with Kuwait he took the issues with his allies, the Americans. They sent a woman to tell him in a diplomatic language that while they are not telling the sides how to resolve their differences, America prefers to avoid bloodshed. Saddam in his infantile brain didn't get the message and decided to invade. Did the Americans consider this episode a mere cultural misunderstanding (which it mostly was)? No, they hastily organized an international coalition that dumped on Saddam more ammunition in a matter of weeks, than they used in Vietnam in years. For the remainder of his life, Saddam was as good as dead.

So why are we so convinced that anything changed?

-QP

p.s. I think the reason the administration has appeared somewhat sloppy on Libya is that Gaddafi has been for quite sometime, and openly for almost a decade, a European puppy. The Americans had to clean up the European's mess in two world wars and twice in the Balkans.

Mid-afternoon Coffee Snack

2011-02-28T13:45:00.000-05:00

Yehudit Ravitz - Shir Lelo Shem

Video - Gaddafi's Goons Fleeing Like Rats

2011-02-26T20:42:00.000-05:00

Mid-afternoon Coffee Snack

2011-02-25T13:18:00.000-05:00

Dani Litani - HaLaila

A Petition to the German Government

2011-02-24T21:26:00.001-05:00

This open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has come to my attention. It expresses dismay at Germany's recent UN vote against Israel. The petition has so far garnered 3,500 signatures and they are targeting 10,000. While many of the signatories are just concerned German citizens, it includes some respectable journalists and intellectuals.

If you know any German citizens that wish to maintain their country's modern role as a friend of the Jewish people and the state of Israel, please bring this petition to their attention.

It was translated by a native German speaker and further edited by me:

To: Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle

The Arab world is burning. But the UNSC has nothing better to do than to debate for three hours Israel's settlement policy with the goal of label them as illegal.

You, honorable Ms. Merkel, and you honorable Mr. Westerwelle have promised the world that Germany will not disappoint when it occupies a seat in the UNSC. But now, you support a resolution that is part of the propaganda war of the Palestinians, instead of prompting the Palestinians to negotiate with their peace partner Israel a mutual agreement in regards to the future borders of the Palestinian state.

This makes it clear that Germany does not measure up to its own expectations with respect to its position as 'Friend of Israel' exactly when it is called upon to back years of lip service with concrete actions. Here, one would expect Germany's equivocal 'No!'.

However, by consenting to the UNSC resolution you support the one sided conviction of the only democracy in the Middle East based on the falsification of history.

There exists no international law that forbids Israel's settlement activity. You might find Israel's settlement policy as political folly, as a hinderness for peace, etc. But they are certainly not illegal. Although the NGO Human Rights Watch claims that the Americans transgressed against human rights with their veto because it would be forbidden to Israel to conduct 'population transfer into occupied territories'. However, the Geneva Convention, which took place in 1949, refers to the forceful population transfer from Germany to the East by the Nazis. No single citizen of the state of Israel was ever forced to move into occupied territory. Therefore, the Geneva Convention is inapplicable to the current situation.

You, honorable Ms. Merkel, and you honorable Mr. Westerwelle, allow for the Arab countries to to divert attention away from their own deficiencies by putting Israel under the spotlight while in the same time hundreds and hundreds of demonstrators are shot down in the streets of Libya, Bahrain Egypt and other Arab states. Moreover, you support a resolution that is used by the Palestinian Authority and other Arab states as part of delegitimization campaign whos final goal is to deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. In other words it aims to physically abolish the Jewish state, as Germany tried to physically abolish the Jewish people a few decades ago.

How can you declare that the safety of Israel as the Jewish state is part of Germany's national interest and meanwhile ignore that all the details of the peace process also have the added dimension of security? How can Germany seriously claim to be a credible friend of Israel while supporting a one sided and biased resolution that completely misjudges the reasons of the conflict.

We are shocked, dismayed and deeply disappointed at how Germany practices its new role as a member of the United Nation Security Council.

Sincerely,

The undersigned
----------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL TEXT:

An: Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel und Außenminister Guido Westerwelle

Sehr geehrte Frau Merkel,

Sehr geehrter Herr Westerwelle,

Die arabische Welt brennt. Doch der UN-Sicherheitsrat hat nichts Besseres zu tun, als drei Stunden lang über Israels Siedlungspolitik zu debattieren, mit dem Ziel, sie als illegal zu verurteilen.

Sie, verehrte Frau Merkel, und Sie, Herr Westerwelle, hatten der Welt versprochen, dass Deutschland nicht enttäuschen würde, sowie Sie im Weltsicherheitsrat sitzen. Und jetzt befürworten Sie eine Resolution, die Teil eines Propagandakriegs der Palästinenser ist, anstatt die Palästinenser aufzufordern, mit ihrem Friedenspartner Israel über eine einvernehmliche Übereinkunft hinsichtlich der Grenzen des künftigen palästinensischen Staates zu verhandeln.

Damit wird nur einmal mehr deutlich, dass Deutschland seinem eigenen Anspruch an "Freundschaft mit Israel" immer dann überhaupt nicht gerecht wird, wenn die Politik konkret herausgefordert ist, den allgemeinen Lippenbekenntnissen mit situationsgerechten klaren politischen Statements Substanz zu verleihen. Hier hätte man von Deutschland ein klares "NEIN" erwartet.
Vielmehr unterstützen Sie aber mit Ihrer Zustimmung zu der UNO-Resolution eine einseitige Verurteilung der einzigen Demokratie im Nahen Osten aufgrund von Geschichtsklitterung.
Es existiert kein Völkerrecht, das Israel die Siedlungen verbietet. Sie mögen die Siedlungen politisch für unsinnig, als Hindernis für den Frieden und sonstiges betrachten. Aber „illegal" sind sie nicht. Zwar erklärt die Menschenrechtsorganisation Human Rights Watch, dass die Amerikaner mit ihrem Veto gar gegen das Völkerrecht verstoßen hätten, weil es Israel verboten sei, einen „Bevölkerungstransfer" in die besetzten Gebieten durchzuführen. Die 4. Genfer Konvention von 1949 bezieht sich jedoch auf den zwangsweisen Bevölkerungstransfer von Deutschen in den Osten durch die Nazis. Es wurde jedoch kein einziger Siedler vom Staat Israel jemals gezwungen, in die „besetzten Gebiete" umzusiedeln. Deshalb kann diese Genfer Konvention auf Israel und die besetzten Gebiete nicht angewandt werden.

Sie, verehrte Frau Merkel, und Sie, Herr Westerwelle lassen zu, dass die arabischen Länder von ihren eigenen Unzulänglichkeiten ablenken, indem sie Israel an den Pranger stellen, während zur gleichen Zeit in Libyen, Bahrain, Ägypten und in anderen arabischen Ländern dutzende und hunderte Demonstranten niedergeschossen werden. Sie unterstützen dabei eine Resolution, die vonseiten der palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde und einiger arabischen Staaten zudem als Teil einer Delegitimierungs-Kampagne gegen Israel betrieben wird, die in letzter Konsequenz darauf abzielt, Israel das Existenzrecht als jüdischen Staat abzuerkennen. Mit anderen Worten: Es geht darum, den jüdischen Staat physisch abzuschaffen, so wie Deutschland vor einigen Jahrzehnten bemüht war, das jüdische Volk physisch abzuschaffen.

Wie kann man nur die Sicherheit des jüdischen Staates Israel zum Teil deutscher Staatsräson erklären und dabei ignorieren, dass alle den Friedensprozess betreffende Details immer auch eine sicherheitspolitische Dimension haben? Wie kann Deutschland ernsthaft meinen, mit der Unterstützung einer einseitigen, unausgewogenen und die Ursachen des Nahostkonflikts verkennenden Resolution der Freundschaft zu Israel Glaubwürdigkeit zu verleihen?

Wir sind schockiert, bestürzt und zutiefst enttäuscht darüber, in welcher Weise Deutschland seine "neue Rolle" im Weltsicherheitsrat praktiziert.
Hochachtungsvoll, / Sincerely,
Die Unterzeichner / The Undersigned

Video - Live Fire Against Libyan Rebels

2011-02-24T19:41:00.000-05:00

This video is from yesterday in Derna. The title says 'Peaceful Demonstrators'. I don't know, a heck of a lot of them seem to carry pretty large rocks. They are not peaceful demonstrators, but rebels. Rebels against a brutal, insane dictatorship, but still rebels.

I wish them luck and international assistance.

-QP

Mid-afternoon Coffee Snack

2011-02-24T13:24:00.000-05:00

Rmi Kleinstein - Tapuhim u'Tmarim

Video - Gaddafi's Mercenaries in Action

2011-02-24T12:05:00.000-05:00

Spring Time of the (Arab) Peoples

2011-02-24T11:58:00.000-05:00

Anyone who has followed my blog with respect to the recent wave of unrest in the Arab world, must have realized that I tend to liken the current it to a very important hinge-point in European and world history, the popular revolutions of 1848 otherwise knows as 'Spring Time of the Peoples'. In that year, a wave of popular unrest swept most of the continent after a successful revolution toppled the French constitutional monarchy.

Robert Zaretsky, a Texas based history professor, also likes this analogy:

The dead weight of brutal and autocratic rulers; a young and professional middle class deprived not just of liberty, but jobs; a deep and persistent economic crisis; and a revolution in communications that renders traditional borders obsolete and, finally, the bursting of the dam that unleashes a surge of revolution that sweeps across a continent: these conditions describe not only North Africa and the Middle East today, but Europe in 1848. If nations from Tunisia to Bahrain are, in fact, reviving the so-called “springtime of peoples”, the winter of political disenchantment may not be far away.
The backgrounds to the two series of revolutions are eerily similar. The Great Recession of recent memory was a blip compared to the economic depression, known as the “hungry years,” that flattened Europe in the 1840s. Disastrous harvests pushed up grain prices across Europe; city dwellers, spending more on food, bought fewer commodities; industrial and commercial activity slowed to a near standstill.

Other parallels are remarkable. From the newfound means of rapid communications as well as the symbolic gestures that initiated it to how it spread from one country to another. While in France the Second Republic was hastily proclaimed, other countries in Europe took differing paths. The absolute monarchy was over, but an era of consensual democracy was not the result:

But here the parallels between the rest of Europe and Paris end. France was the only country that succeeded in actually toppling its monarch; elsewhere, thrones were rocked, but never fell. Kings instead retreated and watched while the protesters, now given the opportunity to govern, instead squabbled amongst themselves. This was hardly a recipe for holding onto power, especially as their countries still faced dire economic problems. Within short order, the Houses of Habsburg and Hohenzollern exploited this confusion and regained power. For the all those who lived east of the Rhine, the springtime of peoples was over scarcely before it began.
Even the French Second Republic eventually succumbed to the lure of authoritarian rule. Following the infamous June Days, when republican guardsmen shot and killed more than 4,000 protesters denouncing the government’s decision to end unemployment insurance. Six months later, to the horror of republicans, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the nephew of Napoleon I, won the presidential elections. Republicans fears were soon confirmed when Louis Napoleon overthrew the republic and declared himself emperor. In a national referendum, eight of ten Frenchmen signed off on the change from Republic to Empire.
The revolution of 1848 in France was crushed by a new kind of authoritarian regime that had the wit to exploit the language of populism, wiliness to co-opt potential opponents and will to crush those who refused to fall into line. It is, of course, too early to say if conditions in Egypt, for example, will encourage a “Bonapartist” solution. But it is not too early to recall Tocqueville’s observation, made after Bonaparte had buried the Republic: “Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.”

In Germany, then in the control of the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty, it led to the eventual rise of masterful political tactician and skilled populist demagogue, Bismarck. It led to a rise of a new kind of national identity. A nationalism that led the people feel that they are, or should be, in charge of the affairs of state. The masses wanted to be in charge of the affairs of state, to decide when the nation goes to war with others.

Unfortunately, the masses are quite often a poor judge. The next hundred years were not even remotely peaceful and it took the horrors of the Second World War to finally usher an era of consensual democracy and individual rights to the heart of the continent.

If we were to learn anything from history, we would learn that the new, democratic Egypt could potential a very radical, populist Egypt that choses to go to war with its neighbors. It is often said that the modern Middle East is composed of artificial states, whose borders were drawn by external powers. National identity in the Middle East was often limited to the presidential palace or to the ruling dynasty.

But wasn't the Austro-Hungarian Empire equally as artificial? It's borders were drawn by a few powerful families that were often quite removed from their own 'street'. It was composed of Germans, Hungarians, Poles, Serbs, Gypsies and Jews. Most of whom felt very strongly about their ethnic identity and often felt little warm feelings for the emperor. When everything was said and done, each one of those groups ended up carving a slice of the world as its own national homeland.

What we can expect from the Middle East is the replacement of fairly stable autocracies with populist, radical states, often with internal schism based on ethnic, religious and tribal affiliations. The question is whether the west, which already went through the schism can somehow guide the Arab world to stability without going through the type of conflicts that ravaged Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

-QP

Scary Video from Libya

2011-02-23T21:57:00.000-05:00

Tripoli - Gaddafi's forces spraying bullets at rebels.

Israeli Arab Sheikh Threatens an Uprising

2011-02-23T20:22:00.001-05:00

Israeli Arab Sheikh Abbas Zakhour, who until recently occupied a seat in the Knesset, Israel's national parliament is warning that unless discrimination against Israel's Arab minority stops, a similar type of popular uprising as seen in the Middle East recently is imminent.

This is coming from a person who merely last year traveled to Libya to kiss Gaddafi's ass to the dismay of many Israelis. While some of the Israeli Arab leaders who traveled to Libya last year expressed reservations regarding the visit (at least retroactively), to my Knowledge the Sheikh hasn't.

It's important to note that individual members of Israel's Arab minority have access to far more political and economical rights than any other Arab individuals in the Middle East. That's without mentioning the large number of affirmative action programs that was legislated by the state in recent years.

Are things perfect? No... but it's mostly because of douches like the Sheikh who wants to push his constituents towards petty ethnic warfare rather than represent their many (legitimate) aspirations in the Knesset, which is what he was elected by them to do.

If anything, I think Israeli Arabs should enact a similar day of range against their own community leaders, who would rule just as a typical Middle Eastern autocrat were they given the chance.

-QP

Obama on Libya - Live

2011-02-23T17:08:00.005-05:00

The POTUS is now addressing the world about the recent events in Libya.

Will it be another vacuus, empty speech as usual?

We shall see!

'We condemn the violence in Libya... blah blah blah... Not only us, but even the Arabs!'

The Libyan government must be made accountable, and held accountable. This must be an international effort. HRC (which ironically, Libya is a proud member of) will be convened in Geneva and Obama is sending Hillary there.

'This is a change driven by the people...'.

Overall, not anything dramatic or substantial. The administration is maintaining its firm line of supporting the protest movements in the Middle East.

However, no mention whatsoever of Muammar Gaddafi. Not outlining the type of change that America concretely wants to see.

I hope that this means he is sending Clinton to bitchslap the Europeans who have been in bed with Gaddafi for about a decade now.

First Taste of Middle East Instability Reaches Israel

2011-02-23T16:52:00.000-05:00

In the last few hours several 'Grad' rockets have hit several towns in the northern Negev. Most notably, Be'er Sheva has been hit for the first time since operation 'Cast Lead' just over two years a go.

I bet western liberals feel very proud of their unconditional support to the 'democratic' revolution taking place in the Middle East. Well, what we will actually be seeing very soon is much more instability, more conflicts. The only thing we will probably not see much off is real democracy in the western sense. That is, a democracy that runs on the principles of individual rights, freedom of expression and mutual coexistence of citizens with varying, often contradictory desires.

Sorry, the 'people's desire to wage holy war on the infidels' does not cut it as a democratic aspiration.

What we are seeing now is an immediate result of the collapse of Egypt's authoritarian regime, and its replacement with a nervous military junta. Hamas feels emboldened. Egypt is too busy to enforce the Gaza-Sinai border properly and Hamas must be seeing its supply lines revived. They also saw Iranian warships pass freely through the Suez canal for the first time since the last glorious and democratic revolution in the Middle East. Of course I am referring to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Israel always seemed out of place in the region. Despite of imperfections, sometimes tension internal relations on the basis of ethnicity and nationality and a long conflict with the Palestinians, the type of behavior that is routinely used by Arab dictators against their own people or their Arab neighbours is only conceivable to some of the most radical fringes of both the left and the right in Israel. For that reason Israel has been nervously preparing itself for the blow back from events that are utterly out of its control.

The first wave has just surfaced. The tense calm that has somewhat persisted since January 2009 has just been broken. Israel has already retaliated by bombing targets within Hamas' terrorist heaven.

However, Israel will be reluctant to respond in force at this sensitive hour, unfortunately.

-QP

Mid-afternoon Coffee Snack

2011-02-23T12:25:00.000-05:00

Hemi Rodner - Geula

Late Afternoon Cofee Break

2011-02-22T16:47:00.000-05:00

Barry Sakharoff - Halaliot

Insane Tweets from Libya

2011-02-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

I was always weary of what's found on Twitter regarding any event in the world, let alone what's happening in the Middle East right now.
This tweet has to take the cake:

Confirmed caller from Tripoli: African mercenaries are African jews trained in
Israel #Libya #Egypt #Tunisia #Algeria #feb17

Yep. This is the kind of quality news streaming out Libya via the celebrated social networks. If you didn't chuckle when reading this tweet then it's pretty much imperative that your brain leaked out of your rears, some time a go.

Sadly enough, this is not comedy, but it's really what's going on in the minds of the alternative, democratic leadership of the Arab world.

Is it possible that mercenaries were trained by Israeli former officers? Yes, there are Israeli ex-combatants that make excellent trainers. Is it possible that they were trained in Israel? Please give me a break.

That is joined by the ridiculous claim that they are African 'Jews'. Who else could be surpressing the legitimate aspirations of the peoples except for inhuman African 'Kaffirs', who are also dirty 'Jews' trained by the evil 'Zionists'.

This is democracy in the Middle East folks! blame everything on the Jooos.

-QP

Seif El Islam Addressing Libya

2011-02-20T18:36:00.000-05:00

Boy, do lengthy, delusional speeches run in the family!

Seif El Islam, who until recently was the favourite to inherit the crown, is currently delivering a lengthy, tedious speech which I am following through Al Jazeera.

Basically he is blaming the entire situation on foreign influences, African migrant workers and on drugs and alcohol. Amazing!

He spent most of the speech addressing Libya's social and historical background and making predictions of where it is headed, if the current government is toppled. He is making the grimmest of predictions, promising tribalism will fracture Libya into multiple states. It will be worse than Yugoslavia and the division will be deeper than North/South Korea.

On the positive side, he is promising to work on a constitution and work together to create the second 'Jumahariya', or people's republic.

He is counting on the people's fear of chaos, hunger and tribalism to establish himself as the leader. Basically, he is telling the demonstrators that if they want to make gains, they must work with him.

Very self serving, don't you think?

-QP

The Collapse of the Ghaddafi Family

2011-02-20T17:43:00.000-05:00

It seems as though Libya is outdoing its more populous neighbours Egypt and Tunisia. The ruthlessness of Ghaddafi's regime is much more severe than anything else seen in the Middle East under the current wave of strife. The brutality of the regime is so far matched pitch for pitch by the resilience of the demonstrators.

The security forces did not seem to reluctant to open machine gun fire at crowds, including attendants of funerals of deceased demonstrators.

This however, was insufficient to deter the demonstrators from pressing home the advantage. The city of Benghazi is reported to be in full control of the anti-regime forces and that the capital is about to fall as well.

Some of the rumours trickling down suggest that two of Ghaddafi's sons (who were the contenders for the crown rights) have entered a gun fight with each other and that Ghaddafi himself has fled for Venezuela, where he can hang out with fellow benevolent creator of a socialist paradise, Hugo Chavez.

-QP

Shavua Tov!

2011-02-19T17:00:00.000-05:00

Ariel Zilber - Agada Yapanit

Obama is AWOL

2011-02-18T13:31:00.000-05:00

So now we know, Iranian warships are going to cross the Suez canal and unload munitions headed for Syria and Hizbullah.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Qardawi, has returned to Egypt and held a mass prayer that makes the demonstrations of the last couple of weeks look like a small campfire gathering of a few buddies.

Qardawi is perhaps the single most influencial radical islamist preacher in the world. This is Egypt's Khomeini, who has been in exile in Qatar. Incidentally, it's the same Qatar who has been promoting a false narrative of the events of Egypt in order to speed-up the collapse of the government there via their propaganda arm, Al-Jazeera.

In the last few days, we see all of America's strategical interests in the Middle East falling apaprt and the administration is AWOL.

-QP

Mid-afternoon Coffee Snack

2011-02-18T13:22:00.000-05:00

The High Windows (Ha'Khalonot Ha'Gvohim) - Yehezkel

The Assault on Lara Logan - a Case of Cognitive Dissonance

2011-02-18T12:44:00.000-05:00

Lara Logan, a CBS reporter of whom I was never too familiar with, was sexually assaulted while covering the events on Tahrir square. After being immediately flown out of Cairo back to New York, Lara has since recovered from her injuries, which were deemed serious, reunited with her family and returned to work.

Lara is coming out as quite a remarkable person.

In an interview she said:

"We were detained by the Egyptian army," Logan told Esquire. "Arrested, detained, and interrogated. Blindfolded, handcuffed, taken at gunpoint, our driver beaten. It's the regime that arrested us. They arrested [our producer] just outside of his hotel, and they took him off the road at gunpoint, threw him against the wall, handcuffed him, blindfolded him. Took him into custody like that."
Logan continued to say, "They blindfolded me, but they said if I didn't take it off they wouldn't tie my hands. They kept us in stress positions-they wouldn't let me put my head down. It was all through the night. We were pretty exhausted... We were accused of being Israeli spies. We were accused of being agents. We were accused of everything," Logan said.

So it looks as though she was assaulted by the army and not by unruly mob of demonstrators as was initially thought. But the most disturbing issue surrounding this is the disgusting cognitive dissonance of western liberals.
Being detained by the army does not exactly translate as being detained by the regime, but it is also quite different from what was initially said. But during the few days where it was believed that she was assaulted by the 'pro-democracy' demonstrators, she underwent a quite embarrassing attack by her western colleagues.

Logan's crime was being attacked by a group of people who according to the western liberal narrative were supposed to be kind, idealistic souls, just like they are. This event has shaken the narrative to the core and reminded us that Egypt can still not be viewed through our rosy pink goggles.

Perhaps the most notable rebuke of Logan came from former Israeli and ardent Jew-turned-genocidal antisemite, Nir Rosen:

"[L]ara logan had to outdo anderson. Where was her buddy mccrystal?" he reportedly posted to his Twitter, referencing recent attacks against CNN correspondent Anderson Cooper, who was punched in the head repeatedly while covering protests in Cairo.
Rosen only dug his hole deeper as he tried to defend himself to his Twitter followers and the media.
"[J]esus [C]hrist, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger," he said via Twitter on Tuesday afternoon.

Shortly after, Rosen's career was derailed, hopefully for good. People like him should not have the pleasure of making a comfortable living spewing this hatred. He is a type of person that should sweep gutters in order to avoid starvation.

On a totally different note, Catherine Forsythe decried the lack of coverage from Al-Jazeera:

For the coverage of the revolt in Egypt, Al Jazeera had been exceptional. The stories were filed in an expedient manner and were insightful. It was obvious that Al Jazeera had a well placed network of reporters to cover a major historical event in its main region of coverage. International news services monitored Al Jazeera for breaking news and a unique, timely perspective of the conflict in Egypt.
The Al Jazeera approach to the Lara Logan incident is nothing. There is not any mention of the horrid incident involving Ms Logan. On the main page of the English speaking site of Al Jazeera, there is a search function for its web pages. Entering "Lara Logan" [without quote marks] in the search function yields one (1) result. The result is a February 2007 news story which mentions Ms Logan:
"... In this week's main feature we follow foreign correspondent Lara Logan's stand against American network CBS. Logan produced a piece called Battle for Haifa Street about violence on the streets of Baghdad. The network refused to run it deeming it "too strong". In frustration Logan sent out an email to friends and colleagues stating the segment was too important to ignore."

I do not understand why Ms Forsythe is surprised. Al-Jazeera have been lately trying to foster an image that they are an honest broker when it comes to international news. They are not, they are a mouthpiece to the Emir of Qatar and his revolutionary ideology. That's why a democratic revolution in Iran does not receive too much coverage, neither does the Logan event, which would introduce cracks into the narrative they are trying to promote among western audiences.

-QP