This article tries to identify the causes of the home-grown terrorism, addressing the particular example of the recent terror attacks in Toulouse, France. It hits however an important point:
"Many French initially and secretly hoped that what happened in and around Toulouse would prove to be a repetition of the attacks in and around Oslo in 2011 – that the terrorist would turn out to be the product of the extreme right. Merah claimed to be acting in the name of fundamentalist Islam; in reality, he was the product of a bloody and deviant sect. How can a petty delinquent, a lost child of the French nation, fall prey to terrorist hatred of any variety?"
In short, we have by now witnessed equally horrifying attacks originating from the extreme right and from the extreme left. What causes the terrorism is not the part of the political spectrum that one belongs to, but how far one is ready to go in order to impress his/her views onto the others.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Nuclear deterrence
A good analysis addressing the logical merits of the argument that Iran armed with nuclear weapons vis-a-vis Israel will make the Middle East or the World a safer place:
"But I was nervously aware that I was urging good sense about a strategic situation that was senseless, because it was premised upon the credibility of a threat of holocaust. I was careful to note my discomfort in my book: deterrence, I said, may be supported but not celebrated, because it is another term for an unprecedentedly lethal danger, which it elects to manage rather than to abolish. I was uneasy with the commonplace notion that deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union “worked,” because this was impossible to verify.
[...]
I CANNOT SAY with sufficient confidence that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be rational or right. There is too much information that I do not possess. I worry about the costs. I do not fear that the region would go to hell, because the Arab states would rejoice in such an action. (In this matter the leader of the Sunni bloc is the Jewish state.) But I do not know that Iran in its current political configuration will be deterred, and neither does anybody else."
"But I was nervously aware that I was urging good sense about a strategic situation that was senseless, because it was premised upon the credibility of a threat of holocaust. I was careful to note my discomfort in my book: deterrence, I said, may be supported but not celebrated, because it is another term for an unprecedentedly lethal danger, which it elects to manage rather than to abolish. I was uneasy with the commonplace notion that deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union “worked,” because this was impossible to verify.
[...]
I CANNOT SAY with sufficient confidence that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be rational or right. There is too much information that I do not possess. I worry about the costs. I do not fear that the region would go to hell, because the Arab states would rejoice in such an action. (In this matter the leader of the Sunni bloc is the Jewish state.) But I do not know that Iran in its current political configuration will be deterred, and neither does anybody else."
Kissinger on Arab Spring
Henry Kissinger on the Arab spring and the US policy (or the current lack thereof) in the Middle East:
"For more than half a century, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been guided by several core security objectives: preventing any power in the region from emerging as a hegemon; ensuring the free flow of energy resources, still vital to the operation of the world economy; and attempting to broker a durable peace between Israel and its neighbors, including a settlement with the Palestinian Arabs. In the past decade, Iran has emerged as the principal challenge to all three. A process that ends with regional governments either too weak or too anti-Western in their orientation to lend support to these outcomes, and in which U.S. partnerships are no longer welcomed, must evoke U.S. strategic concerns — regardless of the electoral mechanisms by which these governments come to power. Within the framework of these general limits, U.S. policy has significant scope for creativity in promoting humanitarian and democratic values."
"For more than half a century, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been guided by several core security objectives: preventing any power in the region from emerging as a hegemon; ensuring the free flow of energy resources, still vital to the operation of the world economy; and attempting to broker a durable peace between Israel and its neighbors, including a settlement with the Palestinian Arabs. In the past decade, Iran has emerged as the principal challenge to all three. A process that ends with regional governments either too weak or too anti-Western in their orientation to lend support to these outcomes, and in which U.S. partnerships are no longer welcomed, must evoke U.S. strategic concerns — regardless of the electoral mechanisms by which these governments come to power. Within the framework of these general limits, U.S. policy has significant scope for creativity in promoting humanitarian and democratic values."
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
What is in common between Afghanistan and Gaza?
If it were not so said, it would make an addition to my "Theatre of the Absurd" collection (JPost repeats here the information provided by LeFigaro):
"A man engaged in a shoot-out with French police on Wednesday, suspected of killing four people at a Jewish school this week, claims to be linked to al-Qaida, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.
"He claims to be a mujahideen and to belong to al-Qaida," Gueant told journalists at the scene of the siege.
He also said the man had been in Afghanistan. "He wanted revenge for the Palestinian children and he also wanted to take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions," Gueant said."
My comment:
Sadly, I am pretty sure that most of the readers see nothing unusual about this claim. Yet, think for a moment about the links between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaida, on the other hand, and France and Palestinian children on the other. However outraged you may be about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, you will have hard time connecting it to the events in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaida without accepting some kind of "global Jihad" point of view or taking a point that all of the World's troubles are faults of Israel and the Jews.
"A man engaged in a shoot-out with French police on Wednesday, suspected of killing four people at a Jewish school this week, claims to be linked to al-Qaida, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant said.
"He claims to be a mujahideen and to belong to al-Qaida," Gueant told journalists at the scene of the siege.
He also said the man had been in Afghanistan. "He wanted revenge for the Palestinian children and he also wanted to take revenge on the French army because of its foreign interventions," Gueant said."
My comment:
Sadly, I am pretty sure that most of the readers see nothing unusual about this claim. Yet, think for a moment about the links between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaida, on the other hand, and France and Palestinian children on the other. However outraged you may be about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, you will have hard time connecting it to the events in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaida without accepting some kind of "global Jihad" point of view or taking a point that all of the World's troubles are faults of Israel and the Jews.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Is antisemitism dead, Ms. Ashton?
Catherine Ashton unwittingly has made a very charged statement:
"Speaking in Brussels at a meeting with Palestinian youth, Ashton said that "When we think about what happened today in Toulouse, we remember what happened in Norway last year, we know what is happening in Syria, and we see what is happening in Gaza and other places- we remember young people and children who lose their lives," she said."
Two comments:
1. What happened in Toulouse resembles what happened in Norway - these were both deliberate attacks against children on the basis of the political convictions/religious beliefs of their parents. Syria and Gaza hardly belong to the same category - the deaths that happened there resulted from war, and even though these deaths are no less tragic, putting all four events in the same line diminishes the significance of Ms. Ashton's condemnation of the hatred that motivated attacks in Toulouse and Norway.
2. It is not clear from Ms. Ashton statements which particular deaths in Gaza she meant - those caused by the Israeli reprisals or those that result from the not infrequent explosions in the terrorist workshops, routinely located in densely populated neighborhoods, and the crude rockets launched towards Israel, which sometimes fall while still over Gaza. In general, there are many things that she did not say explicitly, while allowing her statement to fit easily with widespread anti-Israeli and antisemitic stereotypes.
3. Ashton seems to imply that attacks against Jews are somehow justified by the Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In doing so she however risks crossing the boundary between supposedly legitimate criticism of Israel as a country, and blaming all Jews for the Israeli actions, just because most of the Israelis are Jewish. In short, her statement has clear antisemitic connotations.
It is worth contrasting Ms. Ashton's statement with the ones made by the UN Secretary General and the US, which withheld unhelpful comparisons and stuck to mentioning only what is relevant to the case: the country where it happened and the community which was targeted:
"UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the Toulouse attack. In a statement released late Monday, Ban stated that he "condemns in the strongest possible terms this act of violence and expresses his sincere condolences to the victims' families and the Jewish community, as well as to the government and people of France."
The US also added its condemnation over the attack, as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated Monday that the US was "shocked and saddened to learn of the horrific attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. We join the Government of France in condemning this unprovoked and vicious act of violence.""
Later update:
1. Obviously, I was not the only one who found the statement discussed above antisemitically charged: Baroness Ashton has eventually apologized for it.
2. French, on the other hand, have honorably showed today that they will not justify any kind of killing.
"Speaking in Brussels at a meeting with Palestinian youth, Ashton said that "When we think about what happened today in Toulouse, we remember what happened in Norway last year, we know what is happening in Syria, and we see what is happening in Gaza and other places- we remember young people and children who lose their lives," she said."
Two comments:
1. What happened in Toulouse resembles what happened in Norway - these were both deliberate attacks against children on the basis of the political convictions/religious beliefs of their parents. Syria and Gaza hardly belong to the same category - the deaths that happened there resulted from war, and even though these deaths are no less tragic, putting all four events in the same line diminishes the significance of Ms. Ashton's condemnation of the hatred that motivated attacks in Toulouse and Norway.
2. It is not clear from Ms. Ashton statements which particular deaths in Gaza she meant - those caused by the Israeli reprisals or those that result from the not infrequent explosions in the terrorist workshops, routinely located in densely populated neighborhoods, and the crude rockets launched towards Israel, which sometimes fall while still over Gaza. In general, there are many things that she did not say explicitly, while allowing her statement to fit easily with widespread anti-Israeli and antisemitic stereotypes.
3. Ashton seems to imply that attacks against Jews are somehow justified by the Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In doing so she however risks crossing the boundary between supposedly legitimate criticism of Israel as a country, and blaming all Jews for the Israeli actions, just because most of the Israelis are Jewish. In short, her statement has clear antisemitic connotations.
It is worth contrasting Ms. Ashton's statement with the ones made by the UN Secretary General and the US, which withheld unhelpful comparisons and stuck to mentioning only what is relevant to the case: the country where it happened and the community which was targeted:
"UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the Toulouse attack. In a statement released late Monday, Ban stated that he "condemns in the strongest possible terms this act of violence and expresses his sincere condolences to the victims' families and the Jewish community, as well as to the government and people of France."
The US also added its condemnation over the attack, as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated Monday that the US was "shocked and saddened to learn of the horrific attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. We join the Government of France in condemning this unprovoked and vicious act of violence.""
Later update:
1. Obviously, I was not the only one who found the statement discussed above antisemitically charged: Baroness Ashton has eventually apologized for it.
2. French, on the other hand, have honorably showed today that they will not justify any kind of killing.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Most prestigious professions in Israel
Impressive order of priorities:
"The Dahaf Institute survey, led by Dr. Mina Tzemah, also examined the public’s views of the status of the profession of scientist. Individuals in the medical profession were rated number one in prestige, while scientific professions were number two.
Somewhat lower were engineers, followed by teachers and military officers. The least respected profession was being a Knesset member. Teaching has risen in prestige, from 11th place in 2009 to fourth today."
"The Dahaf Institute survey, led by Dr. Mina Tzemah, also examined the public’s views of the status of the profession of scientist. Individuals in the medical profession were rated number one in prestige, while scientific professions were number two.
Somewhat lower were engineers, followed by teachers and military officers. The least respected profession was being a Knesset member. Teaching has risen in prestige, from 11th place in 2009 to fourth today."
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Is the Palestinian problem the major Middle East problem?
Here is a coincise formulation of the point that I have made several times in this blog (here, here, and here): the Palestinian problem is being used as a way to distruct the World's attention from the far more serious problems within and among the Middle-Eastern states:
"For decades, the chattering classes have been working hard to teach us that the central issue of the region was not the Shia-Sunni conflict or the struggle for freedom by Arabs longing to rid themselves of autocratic monarchs or dictators. The belief in the centrality of the Palestinian issue was so strong that every other consideration had to be subordinated to the cause of trying to assuage the anger of the Muslim world at their plight. But in the past year, the main subjects of discussion have been the Arab Spring revolts and the debate over how best to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. The result is that the world is getting on with its business these days without obsessing about the Palestinians. Even President Obama, who had picked an annual fight with Israel, chose this year to abandon his usual attempt to pressure Israel into concessions to the Palestinians."
"For decades, the chattering classes have been working hard to teach us that the central issue of the region was not the Shia-Sunni conflict or the struggle for freedom by Arabs longing to rid themselves of autocratic monarchs or dictators. The belief in the centrality of the Palestinian issue was so strong that every other consideration had to be subordinated to the cause of trying to assuage the anger of the Muslim world at their plight. But in the past year, the main subjects of discussion have been the Arab Spring revolts and the debate over how best to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. The result is that the world is getting on with its business these days without obsessing about the Palestinians. Even President Obama, who had picked an annual fight with Israel, chose this year to abandon his usual attempt to pressure Israel into concessions to the Palestinians."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)