Doc's Talk: I'm Interviewed on Israel: An Introduction and Current Middle East Developments

Saturday, April 07, 2012

I'm Interviewed on Israel: An Introduction and Current Middle East Developments

Barry Rubin

Interview in the Daily Caller:

1.) What makes Israel: An Introduction different than the other introductions to Israel on the market? What makes the book unique?

Actually, I don’t think there is a single book that provides a comprehensive explanation of Israel’s land, people, history, society, economy, politics, and culture. What we have had are two types of books: those on the Arab-Israeli conflict, including those by journalists who didn’t know the language or much about the country, on one hand, and impressionistic books written by people who visit for a few weeks and write mostly on the conflict, emphasizing interviews with extremists on both ends and often making ludicrous mistakes. There has never been a book about the actual country and the real people who live there.

I say that because there is no country in the world that foreigners think they know more about but really know less about than Israel. So this book is written based on the work on insiders and is comprehensive. What is very pleasing is that so many people have learned a lot by reading Israel: An Introduction. 2.) What are the key themes that readers should take away from it?

The most important theme is one that was once central but has generally been forgotten: Israel is a remarkable success story. We should remember the difficulties it faced in transforming a land without resources, surviving so much hostility, and turning a people with many differences and no military or governmental experience into a stable and prosperous democratic nation.

A second theme is the creation of a unique society—simultaneously diverse and united--mixing Jewish religious, Jewish historical, both eastern and western European, Middle Eastern, and Mediterranean influences. There are many surprises that belie the stereotypes.

I also think Israel is interesting as a variant of modern, Western, democratic society. True, Israel has been in some ways a canary in the coal mine for the world, though the cave-in has long since happened. But it is also a model for something else. This is why Israel is so important and interesting for Western Christians, Africans, and Asians. It is also one of the reasons why Israel is so hated by some sectors among Western elites. Israel is a nation-state at a time when that is unfashionable; melds religion into the national character when anti-religious views are held by Western elites, and is ready to defend itself at a time when self-defense is viewed as being close to immoral. While the foundation was laid by democratic socialism, prosperity was later by jettisoning statism and turning toward free enterprise.

In a real sense, Israel is the Western radical left’s worse nightmare—and that applies to the Jews among them. That’s why they must slander it and try to ensure its delegitimation, failure, and even destruction. Of course, that effort will fail.

3.) You have previously written that you don’t believe Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? Do you still believe that? Or do you think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is now seriously considering a strike?

Not exactly. What I have written is that there was never a possibility that Israel would attack Iran now, meaning 2012. There is a high possibility of an attack in the 2013-2015 period. I was explaining an attack wasn't going to happen at a time when virtually everyone in the world was saying the opposite. Now it is clear that my assessment was correct. I only mention this as a matter of credibility in judging future analyses.

4.) Do Israelis trust President Obama to have their back, as he recently declared he did?

Ha. Of course not. And everyone knows it even though they need to be polite in public since Israel must deal with the president that American people elected.

5.) Do you believe a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel?

Of course it is an existential threat. The question is whether that threat can be dealt with by means other than by an Israeli attack to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

I believe that there is a better alternative strategy which is a U.S.-backed Israeli ability to attack Tehran’s facilities if it needed to do so along with a real credible containment and a multi-level defensive system to make such a need to attack less necessary.

Let’s remember by the way that when the Democratic Party’s single largest contributor asked Senator Hillary Clinton what she would do in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat to attack Iran she said she would flatten them. Senator Barack Obama said he would study the matter. Obama’ weakness and waste of time has made things much worse and has made a future war more, not less, likely.

6.) What do you think have been President Obama’s greatest weaknesses handling the crises in the Middle East that have arisen during his tenure?

His misunderstanding and romance with anti-American, antisemitic revolutionary Islamists. His embrace of the Islamist regime in Turkey. His slowness and uncertainty in countering Iran’s growing power, with the conventional and subversive means used by Tehran being as dangerous as nuclear weapons. His failure to support Israel and his making the diplomatic peace process worse. It is a very long list.

7.) How should the U.S. handle the turmoil in Egypt? Should the U.S. cut off aid to Egypt?

It is too late in many respects. Obama should have followed the State Department’s proposal to support Mubarak’s ouster and a careful transition back in January-February 2011. Then, instead of working with the army and the moderates, the U.S. government embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and the media falsely presented that group as moderate.

As of now, it is too early to cut off military aid. The army is not the real enemy and there is no evidence it won’t turn over power to civilians. At this point, aid should be continued to prevent the army from collapsing or being radicalized. But at some time in the future the U.S. government will probably have to threaten credibly to cut off aid in response to Egyptian government behavior and might actually have to stop the aid.

But the U.S. government needs to recognize the threat of Islamism in Egypt and the fact that the Brotherhood is its main enemy. It needs to support three forces: the anti-Islamist Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan; Israel; and the real democratic and anti-Islamist forces in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and elsewhere.

8.) What do you think of American commentators like MJ Rosenberg and Peter Beinart, as well as groups like J Street, focusing on Israeli settlements as if they are the number one issue preventing peace between Israel and its neighbors?

For the first time in history, there is a well-financed, systematic campaign to try to destroy American Jewish support for Israel. The Israeli government has not backed the establishment of a single new settlement or the geographic expansion of any existing settlement since 1993. And if the Palestinian leadership had accepted a two-state solution in 2000 almost all of the settlements would have been dismantled years ago, just as happened in the Gaza Strip. So blaming everything on the settlements—absurd to anyone with a real knowledge of the situation—is an effort to avoid confronting the Palestinian and widespread Arab and Muslim rejection of Israel’s existence. That’s what blocked peace before there were any settlements and still do so today and for a long time to come.

9.) Any plans to write another book? If so, about what?

My next book is already completed and I think it is going to have a big impact. It is entitled, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Dr. Wolfgang Schwanitz, and based on newly released CIA and never before translated German documents. Basically, it shows how the alliance was stronger and more important than previously understood and also how individuals, ideologies, and groups that collaborated with the Axis have ruled the Arabic-speaking world for the last sixty years and will continue to do so in the current Islamist wave.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk