Archive

Posts Tagged ‘France’

"If you’re going to make a xenophobic poster, at least make it original…"

March 11th, 2010 Arab News 1 comment


“The Algerian government has formally protested to Paris about a poster which associates its flag with Islamisme, or radical forms of Islam. The poster shows France covered by an Algerian flag and a forest of mosque minarets. The slogan reads: “Non à l’Islamisme”.

It closely resembles a poster published by a nationalist party in Switzerland.before a mosque-building referendum last November. The Swiss advertising agency that devised the original poster said it planned to sue Mr Le Pen’s party, the National Front, for plagiarism.”

Go to Source

Iran slaps travel ban on celebrated poetess

March 9th, 2010 Arab News No comments

Iran’s most celebrated living poetess Behbahani faces travel ban after prevented from leaving for France.
Go to Source

Categories: Arab News Tags: Behbahani, faces, France, Iran, living, travel

New life for Israel’s anti-occupation left?

March 8th, 2010 Arab News No comments

Didi Remez has a great post today about the gradually snowballing effect of the weekly anti-occupation demonstration’s in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah district.

He writes,

    Thousands of demonstrators, Jewish and Palestinian, from a wide range of backgrounds and with diverse political views came out in a show of force to protest injustice. Writing about “Sheikh Jarrah and the birth of a coalition,” Jerry Haber at Magnes Zionist captures the unique stripes of this emerging movement…

Remez’s post and Haber’s are both really worth reading. They seem to indicate that a new, more focused of anti-occupation activists is growing up in Israel– which is highly welcome, given the demoralization, decimation, and general political failure of the older generation of “peace” activists.

Note that difference, between Israelis who struggled for an amorphous form of “peace” with their Palestinians and the new generation that is more focused on ending the injustice of Israel’s nearly 43-year-old military occupation of Palestinian (and Syrian) land.

This reminds me of something I heard the older-generation French-Israeli activist Sylvain Cypel say in Washington a couple of years ago. He recalled that back when he was a social activist in France in the 1950s,

    we were all very concerned about the situation in Algeria, and called for many years for ‘peace between France and Algeria’. But our movement never got any real traction until we switched from calling for ‘peace’ with Algeria to calling clearly for an end to France’s illegal and repressive rule over Algeria. That was when we started to have an effect on the political system inside France.

That advice certainly resonated with me, from my years growing up in an end-of-empire Britain. “Peace” with India, or Kenya, or Botswana, or whatever??? Heck no! What Britain needed to do in those colonial situations was quite evidently Just Get Out.

Same with Israel in the OPTs today. There, a whole industry has grown up around the loosey-goosey theories that thousands of outsiders have about “peacemaking”, “confidence building”, etc etc etc. That can come! I’m not against it for a moment. But what people need to focus on, surely, is the structural issue of military occupation, and how to end it, pronto.

Otherwise this “peace-processing” business can just go on and on and on– as we have seen already!– for decades! (While the colonists continue to enjoy and consolidate their illegal gains.)

… I see from that Wikipedia page that Cypel is supposed to be working for Le Monde in New York these days. I wonder if I could contact him there. Any ideas?

Go to Source

How Iran acquired the C-802 Cruise Missiles …

March 6th, 2010 Arab News No comments

Via Laura Rosen, in DCbureau/ here

Scores are still being settled from the Iran Iraq War in the 1980s….After transferring to another, smaller helicopter, used to find targets for Iraqi artillery, I got a closer view of how poison gas and every other lethal tool available to Saddam Hussein – all with American approval – were being employed. Hussein’s U.S.-provided arms supplier, Sarkis Soghanalian, had done his job well. As I landed in an abandoned schoolyard at the front a few miles from al-Qurna, where the Garden of Eden supposedly once existed, and crossed by flatboat in the canals Saddam’s army had dug to flood the marshes, I witnessed the endless line of corpses of very old men and adolescents, some children, in tattered Iranian uniforms. The Iranian Mullahs’ defense of the 1979 Revolution and Saddam’s invasion ended festering in Iraqi mud. A million people died in the Iran Iraq War. Almost no one in the United States paid any attention.
More than two decades and two Gulf Wars later, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel face the same Hobson’s choice – this time with an insular and defensive Iran. By removing Saddam Hussein, we created a more powerful and ambitious Iran…..
While the Obama administration prepares for a military conflict with Iran, it is important for us to understand some of the secret history between Iran and the United States that complicates the planning and unnecessarily puts our soldiers and sailors in harm’s way. What follows is one story about how that happened.
Iran has been preparing for an attack since 1988, after a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Vincennes, illegally operating inside Iran’s territorial waters, accidentally shot down Iran Air Flight 655. After the shoot down, the Iranian leadership began a weapons buying spree to counter the threat posed by the powerful American fleet in the Persian Gulf that threatened them and could attack at will.
Sometimes reporters end up in the middle of a story. That is what happened to me. I was in France in June 1997 to attend the Paris Air Show. One of my sources, arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, had shifted his operations to Paris after being sent to jail by the George H.W. Bush administration for doing the United States’ bidding in Iraq and serving as the Reagan administration’s arms dealer of choice to Saddam Hussein. He was released after helping the Clinton administration combat Hezbollah’s counterfeiting operations in Lebanon.
…….Soghanalian introduced me to M. Ping, the CPMEIC representative, who was, in fact, a Chinese intelligence official. …… Ping ignored his host’s awkward lie and, instead, talked business with Soghanalian……..
Ping enthusiastically described the new missiles he wanted Soghanalian to peddle. The missiles were cheap ($60,000) and so were the launch and support equipment. The missiles were as good as any in the U.S. arsenal and could be equipped with nuclear, chemical, biological or conventional warheads. Ping told Soghanalian that components for hundreds of the missiles had been shipped to Iran and, within weeks, would be operational against all shipping in the Gulf. The Chinese wanted Soghanalian to sell the systems throughout the world. (This meeting took place after China had promised the Clinton administration that it would cease construction of these systems.)……
I followed Soghanalian and Ping out, raced to my hotel the Mermoz, and called a U.S. weapons expert who was a longtime source. I asked him, “How many C-802s does the U.S. think Iran has?” The source called back a few minutes later with the answer: “Less than a dozen.” I told him that the Chinese had told Soghanalian, in my presence, that China had shipped key parts for just under 200 missiles. There was silence at the other end of the phone. My source asked: “Can you leave Paris for Washington?” I said that I had another few days of work.
Late that night I received a call from the front desk with a message to meet Veronique at a café around the corner from the Israeli Embassy in Paris. Over a drink, she handed me Ping’s file and said: “The French are involved in this missile deal. You need to be very careful. They are China’s hidden partner.
…….. I asked one CIA official what the United States knew about the C-802. The answer was not reassuring: “The U.S. doesn’t have one. We don’t know how to defend [against] it.”
I returned to Paris, armed with details of everything the government then knew about the C-802, which was not much. Over the next five days, I would learn that in the early 1980s Sarkis had arranged for Iraq to use the U.S. Army’s supercomputers at Aberdeen, Maryland to redesign its Scud missiles. …….Information from that project, along with other sensitive material, was now in the hands of the Chinese and had gone into the improved C-802…….
“This missile you expressed concern about is worse than you know,” Sarkis said. “The Chinese have put a greater range on it than they have claimed. They are getting over-horizon capability for the weapon. . . . I am in a bad position here. I have to do what I am doing. There are things I can’t tell you, but tell the Navy that I can still get them an 802 through Jordan. All I need is the cost. $60,000. They can take it apart, study it, and then I will deliver it to the king.”
Independently, I obtained documents from sources in and out of the United States that indicated that the DOD and CIA had little knowledge of the C-802’s design. With this information I began to put together a picture of what had happened.
Not long after the Vincennes incident in 1988, the Iranian Revolutionary Council turned to terrorism through Libya and Hezbollah for retaliation. Simultaneously, they began to explore ways to increase Iranian defenses against U.S. ships. The first efforts included increased purchases of advanced Chinese Silkworm missiles.
China proposed to Iran that they enter into a contract for a new defense, an anti-ship cruise missile. I was not surprised that China and Iran, both embargoed countries, would work together on such a project. But two components for the missile involved technologies beyond China’s capability. A more technologically advanced nation had to be recruited to obtain these crucial elements. That nation was France. Message traffic intercepted by the United States and Britain through the ECHELON eavesdropping system proved that China began working with France in the late 1980s to supply parts for Chinese weapons systems. Subsequently, French companies agreed to supply precision parts that China could not produce on its own. China also enjoyed a relationship with Israel that gave both countries great advantages in weapons development. After Beijing crushed the pro-democracy movement in 1989, the United States and Europe embargoed arms shipments and technology to China. France ignored the embargo. So did Israel.
Israel and Iraq had two things in common. Both had a close relationship with China and both had exclusive access to the U.S. Army Laboratory at Aderdeen, home to our main weapons supercomputers at the time. Because China was working closely with the Iraqis (and Gerald Bull who had close connections to the laboratory), technology from the lab got into the hands of the Chinese.
By 2001 the Chinese had stopped shipping C-802s to Iran, but Iran had, by then, reversed engineered the missile and was successfully building a much more advanced version than China had in its own arsenal. ….. that kind of maneuverability that makes the C-802 so difficult to defend against, according to Navy weapons experts.
I learned that the Iranians felt cheated by the Chinese on the C-802 deal and had hired a notorious Syrian arms dealer to represent them against the Chinese. I obtained the official CIA biography of the arms dealer Monzer al-Kassar, who had been brought into the deal before Soghanalian. French intelligence, distrustful of al-Kassar, instructed Soghanalian to work with the Chinese after their falling out with Iran…..
A few days later Soghanalian called me back and said the Yemeni authorities said “the explosives used were a warhead from a C-802 missile.” The C-802 can be launched from patrol boats, trucks or helicopters. Soghanalian insisted the explosives the terrorists detonated against the hull of the USS Cole were not, as widely believed, some bundled plastic explosives but a C-802 warhead.
It seemed unlikely to me that Iran would sell such a valuable asset so easily traced back to them to Al Qaeda. Sarkis insisted the “Iranians are not that stupid and neither are the Chinese.” I asked him who had access to a C-802 warhead with ties to Al Qaeda. “The Israelis and French think it is Monzer.” Soghanalian said al-Kassar “has a history of selling to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, especially in Latin America.” I called al-Kassar in Marbella, Spain, and asked him for an interview about his work on the C-802. He refused to talk to me and said, “I do not discuss customer business.” One of his best customers had close relations with Iran and Hezbollah…”

Go to Source

Home-library discoveries

March 4th, 2010 Arab News No comments

The home library that Bill the spouse and I have built up over a total of 90 years of adulthood, between the two of us, now sprawls over seven rooms in our Charlottesville home and one in our DC apartment. (Oh, and he also has may yards of bookshelves in his professorial office, too.) So okay, it’s not completely surprising that often individual items get mislaid…

This morning I was reorganizing some of the space in my home office, to make room for the new project I’m working on. It’s always a good task to do. For me, it helps me focus on whatever I’m about to launch into while also reminding me of many of the resources I’ve gathered for past projects, that can often very helpfully be repurposed today.

Three great discoveries this morning:

    1. Two good, clean, printouts of a lengthy series of articles I wrote about Jerusalem in 1995. Yay! I’ve been thinking for a while I should look for those on a ‘floppy disk’ (remember those?) and then find a way to read the floppy disk and re-use the articles in some way. Now all I need to do is scan one of these printouts into a PDF. I even recently bought a new program called ReadIris that’s pretty good at converting PDF’s into regular word-processing programs…. So now I’m just about set with repackaging/ re-using that now almost “vintage” piece of 1995 reporting.

    2. A copy of Elizabeth Monroe’s great 1982 study Britain’s Moment in the Middle East 1917-41. I was looking for that book with some urgency just the other day, and couldn’t find it. This morning, as I restacked some books from my study onto a shelf in our guestroom, there it was!

    3. Archibald Baxter’s We Will not Cease, which is a most amazing testimony by a young New Zealander who underwent horrendous privations when he tried to uphold his religious principles as a conscientious objector during WW-I. New Zealand made no provision at all for conscientious objection during that war. When Baxter refused to put on the uniform they shipped him in a troop-ship in his underwear to France and at one point in the lengthy narrative even tied him to a cross for two or three nights, in a military base in northern France, during a snowstorm… I actually wanted to quote a few excerpts from the book when I wrote here recently about the enlistment in the N.Z. Rifles in 1914 of my great-uncle Cyril Marlow… But I couldn’t find it at the time. Now I have. Yay!

So, just more reminders that doing a good office reorganization from time to time is a really good idea…

Go to Source

Syria is emerging as an important player in "the race for Iran"

March 4th, 2010 Arab News No comments

More from the Leveretts in the RFI/ here

“…. The “Tripartite Alliance Stands Firm”, opens by noting the rather alarmist commentary in the West about the recent “resistance” summit in Damascus, involving President Assad, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. (HAMAS’s Khalid Mishal also met with Ahmadinejad while the Iranian President was in Damascus.) Sami also notes a tone of perplexity in Western commentary on these meetings, which came on the heels of a visit to Damascus by U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and Washington’s announcement that it would be posting a U.S. ambassador to Syria for the first time in five years.

Sami insightfully explains Bashar al-Assad’s approach to foreign affairs as an adroit exercise in what, from a European historical perspective, could well be described as “classical diplomacy”, based on a nuanced reading of the regional and global balance of power and a flexible approach to individual bilateral relationships. He also relates the “resistance” summit to the question of a possible war in the region later this year, a question that we took up a few days ago.

“Syria wants to keep all doors to Damascus open, much like it did in the 1990s, when Syria enjoyed excellent relations with the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and both HAMAS and Hezbollah. Many in the West claim this is no longer possible, echoing words spoken by George W. Bush after 9/11, when he said: ‘Either you are with us or with the terrorists.’ Syria thinks otherwise, however, arguing that Syrian-Iranian relations are in the best interest of the international community, and should be seen as a blessing in disguise for the United States.

“King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia shares this view, believing that Syria can indeed walk the tightrope between the so-called moderate and radical camps in the Middle East, helping influence and moderate the behavior of HAMAS, Hezbollah, and Iran. Syria has repeatedly used its influence with these players in meetings like the ones that just took place in Damascus (which perhaps were not as high profile) to get HAMAS to accept the Arab Peace Initiative, for example, or to get Hezbollah more involved in the political process in Lebanon….

“The Damascus Summit…is a reminder of how helpful Syria can be [to the United States and others] in dealing with these non-state players. Nevertheless, it sends another strong message: Think twice before waging another war on Lebanon, because neither Syria nor Iran will allow it. Rather than escalate the conflict, the tripartite meeting in Damascus actually force Israel to recalculate, thereby minimizing the chances of war next summer.”

Along the lines of Sami’s analysis, in our meeting with President Assad in Damascus two weeks ago,the Syrian leader underscored that his ties to Iran and to resistance groups like HAMAS and Hizballah should be seen by the United States as an asset—as something that could help open doors that would otherwise remain shut. It was at a press conference in Damascus in 2006, after all, that Khalid Mishal began talking publicly about the 1967 lines as a potential basis for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict; during 2009, Mishal spoke openly about the prospect of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Indeed, in our first meeting with Mishal last summer, he pointed out that HAMAS has offered Israel “a two-state solution on the 1967 lines”, and noted that “no Arab state has gone farther than that”.)

President Assad presents himself as someone focused on solving problems. He is clearly thinking in comprehensive terms about the Middle East’s core conflicts—as we discussed in our post yesterday, he believes a comprehensive settlement of the unresolved tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict is necessary, and that such a settlement will necessarily involve groups like HAMAS and Hizballah. He also says that the challenge of U.S.-Iranian relations is, in some ways, a relatively simple problem, but could become the region’s “worst” problem if it is not solved. In our view, President Assad is likely to be an important player in “the race for Iran”, and in Middle Eastern diplomacy more generally, for many years to come.

Go to Source

Ahmadinejad once again fails to call for the annihilation of Israel, despite what you heard on CNN

February 27th, 2010 Arab News No comments

I saw Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN Friday afternoon. Oren said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had called for the annihilation of Israel, and was therefore speaking of genocide.

It is dreary to see this constant drumbeat of dishonest propaganda. Whatever one thinks of Ahmadinejad or the Iranian regime, one should not misrepresent their statements, since that will lead to bad policy-making.

The Washington Post also wrote, “Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, spoke of Israel’s eventual “demise and annihilation”. In fact, Ahmadinejad never mentioned Israel as a country at all, and spoke only about what he called the ‘Zionist regime.’ He favors an admittedly odd form of the ‘one state solution’ in which Palestinians and at least some Jews would all vote for the same government.

So this is what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday at a press conference in Damascus:

“Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Resistance and Lebanon are ready to meet any conditions, and we hope that the enemies of the nations of the region will change their course and instead walk beside regional states in cooperation. Insofar as the Zionist regime threatens Lebanon and Syria and prominent personalities of these two countries every day, it must accept its end and grant in their entirety the rights of the Palestinian nation.”

That is, Ahmadinejad began by offering an olive branch to any former enemies that wanted to make peace. But he characterized the ‘Zionist regime,’ i.e. the Israeli government with its current ideology, as intrinsically belligerent, and insisted that this ‘regime’ must ‘accept its own end’ and grant Palestinians their full rights (presumably, citizenship and property rights, which they now lack).

Ahmadinejad seems to see Zionism as an ideology as essentially unwilling to allow Palestinian human rights, and so calls for it to acquiesce in its obsolescence.

Ahmadinejad did not mention Israel and did not call for any genocides, or anyone to be killed, or war. He asked Zionists to see that their ideology has no future. In the past he has compared his vision of the fall of what he calls the Zionist regime to the fall of the Soviet Union, which happened peacefully and with no annihilation of the population.

Personally, I see Zionism as just a garden variety form of modern romantic nationalism not different in any way from scores of other nationalisms (including Arab nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and Iranian nationalism).

Zionism constructs Palestinian-Israelis as second-class citizens, and attempts to deny Palestinians in the Occupied Territories basic rights. But other nationalisms are also guilty of exclusions, though there are unique aspects to the Zionist project. Shiite-tinged Iranian nationalism disallows Sunni Iranians, perhaps 10-15% of the population, from serving as president, and Sunni provinces such as Baluchistan are the most deprived of resources and services. Only civic nationalism of the American and French varieties has universalistic aspirations, and even there it is flawed by a latent privileging of some groups within the nation (Protestant whites in the US, secular-minded native-born French of Catholic extraction in France).

Ahmadinejad may be blinkered and hypocritical, but he did not call for the annihilation of or genocide against anyone.

Only committed Zionists would see a one-state solution as the ‘annihilation’ of Israel.

In any case, now that a two-state solution has been made virtually impossible by Israel’s determined colonization of the West Bank, a one-state solution is the most likely outcome of what will probably be a 50-year struggle for basic Palestinian rights to citizenship in a state. The rest of us are going to be mightily inconvenienced by this unnecessary and stupid conflict, and the inconvenience will only be increased by equally stupid propaganda from unreliable narrators like Oren.

End/ (Not Continued)

Go to Source

"… the political clock [for regime change] is moving a lot slower than the nuclear clock…"

February 27th, 2010 Arab News No comments

MEPGS: Excerpts:
     While US policy is aimed at what one official calls "Giving Iran bad news every week," the regime in Teheran appears less on the defensive than ever.  One major contributing factor to its increased sense of power was the failure of the opposition "Green" movement to mobilize earlier this month on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.  Some of those analysts who have argued that the continuing public and private opposition to last year's rigged Presidential election marked a turning point in the fortunes of Iran, are now reassessing their views.  As one veteran analyst put it this week, "There are cracks in the regime but it won't be toppled anytime soon."      Moreover, key US officials, since the disputed election, have scoffed at the notion that the opposition could moderate Iran's headlong rush toward acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.  As one such official said this week, "These arguments on based on the false assumption that the Greens and the US have a lot in common."  And this official points out that the putative leader of the Greens, Mir Hossein Moussavi and his sometime ally Akhbar  Hashemi Rafsanjani, both supported the development of Iran's nuclear program when they were in power.  And even those analysts, who argue that the leadership's preoccupation with political infighting could delay Teheran's nuclear program, admit that, in the words of one veteran analyst, "Under almost any conceivable scenario the political clock [for regime change] is moving a lot slower than the nuclear clock."
      Further complicating attempts to rein in Iran is what one State Department official calls the schizophrenia of Arab friends and allies, especially the Gulf States.  To begin with, the Gulf states are far from united in their view of Iran.  Says one veteran US analyst, "Oman has ties to Iran that go back generations.  Qatar is always marching to a different drum.  The Saudis would like the US to take care of the Iranian threat but are fearful we will make a mess of it like we have done in Iraq.  And even the most outspoken advocates of a hardline, the UAE and Bahrain, doubt that economic sanctions will be sufficient to change Iran's course."  This official points out that given this skepticism, it will be hard to gain the unequivocal support of the Gulf states to assist in implementing sanctions.  [This is especially important in the case of the UAE, one of whose Emirates, Dubai, has long been an important conduit of legal and illegal trade with Iran].  "The bottom line," says another State Department official, "is that these countries don't want to antagonize Iran only to be caught flatfooted in the event of what might be charitably called a US `policy shift.'"      Skepticism about the efficacy of sanctions is not limited to erstwhile Arab allies.  Some veteran US officials flatly predict that "crippling sanctions" just aren't going to be adopted, either by the United Nations or what are called "like-minded" countries.  The Israelis point out that the Obama Administration had promised to reach a decision by the end of 2009.  In December that date was allowed to slip a month.  Then it was thought best to have the UN Security Council take up the issue in February, while France, a strong supporter of sanctions, held the Council Presidency.  But, say well-informed sources, the month has passed with France, and fellow permanent Council member Britain unable to agree with the US (and Germany, which also helps to coordinate a common European position) on a proposal to present to the Council.  Now, say US officials, the goal is to have the Council act by the end of March.
In the wings is Israel, alternately threatening and quiescent. It is clear that Jerusalem does not want to act unilaterally. For one thing, while in conversations with US officials, Israelis argue that the Administration tends to overestimate the negative impact on the region of military action against Iran, privately its own Defense Establishment is anything but sanguine about taking on Iran. In fact, some key Israeli officials fear that Iran may be able to press its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, into provoking a clash with Israel just to divert current international pressure. (NOT happening!) Meanwhile, US officials continue to stream to Israel in an effort to reassure the government of American sensitivity to their security concerns. The latest and highest ranking visitor is Vice President Biden. The idea to send Biden to Israel originated, ironically, among veteran Middle East officials at the Near East Affairs Bureau, They have argued for some time now that the Israelis need to be reassured. Their argument is based on the realization that President Obama continues to be regarded as less than supportive of the Jewish state. During the 2008 campaign, Israelis were the only American allies who, in polling, favored John McCain over Obama. The President's outreach to the Arab and Moslem world, especially in last year's Cairo speech did little to alter Israelis' nervousness about him. His manner with foreign leaders, which even his admirers at the State Department describe as "less than warm and fuzzy," also contributed to the decision to send Biden, perceived to be a long time supporter, to help repair the US-Israel relationship. Tending to Israeli sensibilities will be useful if the Administration is able to get the Palestinians to reengage in talks with the Netanyahu government. The immediate goal is to arrange what are called "proximity talks", an effort to circumvent Palestinian insistence on a complete settlement freeze before engaging directly with Israel. Moreover, well-placed US officials say they have promised Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that they will offer "bridging proposals" should the talks bog down. However, they sometimes despair of Abbas' willingness to take any kind of chance. They say he is "gun shy" after being severely criticized for siding with the US on a call for delay in the issuance of the so-called "Goldstone" report, which was highly critical of Israeli military action in Gaza last January. "It wasn't just Palestinians who attacked him but Arab states as well," noted one US official. "You can imagine what he thinks will happen if he makes real concessions to Israel." US officials are worried that an Arab League summit, set for next month could further discourage the already risk averse Abbas. They place little faith in Arab support particularly in light of Special Envoy George Mitchell's failure to enlist Arab and especially Saudi cooperation in his peacemaking efforts over the past year. Next month will also see crucial elections in Iraq and what US officials believe will be the beginning of a long process of forming a new coalition government in Baghdad. Neither heightened violence nor the political machinations of pro-Iranian figures like the former US favorite, Ahmed Chalabi, have prevented the Sunnis from participating in an election that is certain to result in a government led by a Shia politician. Whether that politician is current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is uncertain. However, to get to agreement is going to take time and the fear among US officials is that in the interim, the caretaker government will have to deal with an increasing level of violence. Still, there is very little appetite in the Administration to delay the draw down of US combat forces slated to begin this summer.

Go to Source

Harvard Professor’s Modest Proposal: Starve the Gazans into Having Fewer Babies

February 23rd, 2010 Arab News 1 comment

Martin Kramer revealed his true colors at the Herzliya Conference, wherein he blamed political violence in the Muslim world on population growth, called for that growth to be restrained, and praised the illegal and unconscionable Israeli blockade of civilian Gazans for its effect on reducing the number of Gazans.

M. J. Rosenberg argued that Kramer’s speech is equivalent to a call for genocide. It certainly is a call for eugenics.

It is shocking that Kramer, who has made a decade-long career of attacking social science understanding of the Middle East and demonizing anyone who departs even slightly from his rightwing Israeli-nationalist political line, should be given a cushy office at Harvard as a ‘fellow’ while spewing the most vile justifications for war crimes like the collective punishment of Gazan children.

Kramer’s remarks are wrong, offensive and racist by implication. He is driven to them by his nationalist ideology, which cannot recognize the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israelis in 1948, cannot see that most Palestinians have been deprived by Israeli policies of citizenship rights (what Warren Burger called ‘the right to have rights’, as Margaret Somers pointed out), and that Palestinians are even at this moment being deprived of basic property and other rights by Israeli occupation. To admit that any of these actions produces a backlash is to acknowledge the Palestinian movements as forms of national liberation movement, and to legitimize Palestinian aspirations. Rightwing Zionism is all about erasing the Palestinians from history. And now Kramer wants to make it about erasing future Palestinian children!

Where have we seen the picture Kramer draws before? It is just a recycled form of Malthusianism, where the population growth rates of “some people” is seen as dangerous to society. Barbara Brown wrote of Apartheid South Africa:

‘ [White] South Africans who express a [concern with Black population growth] perceive a close relationship between population growth rates and political instability. There are two variants of this approach. The first holds that a growing black and unemployed population will mean increased poverty which will in turn lead to a black revolt. . .

In an opening address to a major private sector conference on ‘population dynamics’ in South Africa, the president of the 1820 Foundation argued that ‘Rapid population growth translates into a steadily worsening employment future, massive city growth . . . and an increase in the number of poor and disadvantaged. All are rightly viewed as threats to social stability and orderly change.’

A second, but smaller, group believes the black threat arises simply out of the changing ratio of white to black. This group sees that ‘THE WHITES ARE A DWINDLING MINORITY IN THE COUNTRY’ and argues that this situation will lead to a ’similar reduction of white political authority’.

Some argue for birth control on even more overtly racist grounds, but few people in leadership positions do so, at least publicly. Debates in the House of Assembly have included remarks to the effect that blacks are unable to make a contribution to South African society and so should be encouraged to limit their numbers. The organiser of a ‘Population Explosion’ conference, a medical doctor who is deputy director of the Verwoerd Hospital, argued that whites must organise a family planning programme for blacks because the latter group is biologically incapable of exercising foresight.’

- Barbara B. Brown, “Facing the ‘Black Peril’: The Politics of Population Control in South Africa,” Journal of Southern African Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2(Jan., 1987), pp. 256-273, this quote pp. 263-64.

There are other notorious examples of this sort of argument, including eugenics theorist Madison Grant, who warned in the early 20th century that white Americans were being swamped by inferior eastern and southern Europeans such as Poles, Italians, and Jews.

How ironic, that Kramer should now resort to the very kind of arguments Madison used to condemn Martin Kramer’s ancestors being allowed to come to the United States.

As usual, Kramer, a notorious anti-intellectual opposed to the mainstream academic study of the Middle East, is wrong as a matter of social science.

Population growth in and of itself explains nothing, and certainly not terrorism. Between 1800 and 1900, Great Britain’s population tripled, whereas France underwent a demographic transition and grew very slowly. Yet Britain experienced no revolution, no great social upheavals in that period. France, in contrast, lurched from war to war, from empire to monarchy to empire to Republic, and saw the rise of a plethora of radical social movements, including the Paris Commune.

High population growth can be a problem for development, and can contribute to internal conflict over resources, but it is only one factor. If economic growth outstrips population growth (say the economy grows 7 percent and population grows 3 per year), then on a per capita basis that is the same as 4 percent economic growth, which would be good for most countries. Or if a place is thinly populated and rich in resources, population growth may not be socially disruptive. Most countries in the world have grown enormously in population during the past century, yet they display vastly different rates of social violence.

Although under some circumstances, rapid population growth can contribute to internal social instability, it is irrelevant to international terrorism as a political tactic. The deployment of terror, which the US Federal Code defines as the use of violence against civilians for political purposes by a non-state actor, is always a form of politics. The Zionist terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, which killed 91 persons and wounded 46, did not act because Jewish Irgun members had too many brothers and sisters. (And if you think about who exactly might have made an argument of that form in the 1940s, it becomes clear how smelly Kramer’s is.) Irgun blew the hotel up because British Mandate intelligence had offices there, and because they did not care if they killed dozens of civilians.

Studies of groups that deploy violence against civilians for political purposes show that [pdf link] they are characterized by higher than average education and income, which correlate with smaller family size.

Political violence is about grievances, land, resources and politics. Palestinians were no more violent than any other group in the Middle East until they were ethnically cleansed and their property was stolen by Jewish colonists in their homeland, for which they never received compensation. As Robert Pape has shown, suicide bombings cluster in the area in and around Israel, in Iraq and Afghanistan/ Northern Pakistan, places where people feel militarily occupied. But there are none in Mali or Benin, countries with among the highest population growth rates in the world.

Kramer’s argument is implicitly racist because he applies the population-growth calculus mainly to Arabs, whose family size he minds in ways that he does not others. Belize and the Cameroons have higher population growth rates than Libya. Is Kramer afraid of those two countries? Why is it only Arab children he marks as a danger?

If population growth rates were the independent variable in predicting a turn to terrorism, moreover, the fast-growing ultra-Orthodox or Haredi Jewish population of Israel would be a concern. But in fact they refuse to serve in the Israeli army and so are the least violent part of the population (though there have been occasional Haredi attacks on Palestinians.)

Kramer will find, in his new role as the Madison Grant of the twenty-first century, that his arguments are a double-edged sword that even more unsavory persons than he will gleefully wield against groups other than Arabs.

End/ (Not Continued)

Go to Source

Jordan, France call for Mideast confab

February 22nd, 2010 Arab News No comments

Jordan and France call for international conference to support efforts to achieve Mideast peace.
Go to Source