One of the least recognized tendencies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been the rise of states of based upon common ethnic inheritance. Put differently, unlike the United States, there has been a world-wide tendency for the nation and the state to become one.
Palestine was one of the countries in which that tendency became manifest. When the Palestine Mandate was created after World War I, the British had no idea that two states might arise in Palestine. Nevertheless, as a result of the Arab Revolt that began in 1936, a Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir William Peel was set up to explore ways of arriving at a viable political solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In July 1937, the Commission issued its report which advocated that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab lands, save for a small "corridor" stretching from Jerusalem to the Mediterranean south of Jaffa. The Commission also recommended a "transfer of populations" based on the model of the transfer of populations between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s because "The gulf between the races is thus already wide and will continue to widen if the present Mandate is maintained."
Although the Jews received the smaller land area, they decided to accept the Peel proposal. The Arabs vehemently rejected it. Both sides were seeking to create an ethnic-nationalist state. They differed on the extent of territory each sought. In the 1990s the PLO proposed to establish a secular state in Palestine consisting of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. This was unacceptable to Hamas that sought a religiously legitimated Muslim state. It was also unacceptable to the Jews who believed they had no reason to trust their safety and security to Palestians.
One of the fundamental reasons for the rise of the ethic-national state was the fact that, more often than not, people concluded that if they could trust anyone, it could only be members of their own kinship group which is basically what an ethnic -national state is, rightly or wrongly, taken to be. Jerry Muller, Professor of History at the Catholic University of America, has written an essay, "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism," in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008 explaining why he believes that ethnic nationalism "will drive global politics for generations to come." Required reading for WR Rel 374.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
New Thoughts on the Gaza Hot Spot
In my last post on Gaza, I called attention to Steven Erlanger's article that suggested that Hamas was seeking a Hudna, a truce on its own terms with Israel. In this post, I call attention to two analysts who are of the opinion that a massive Israeli effort may be in the offing to put an end to the 2,500 Kassam rockets that have been fired from Gaza since the beginning of the Intifada in 2000. Bret Stephens' article in the Wall Street Journal, "The Sderot Calculus," discusses the potential difficulties facing Israel should it decide to take strong action. Michael Oren discusses in the Washington Post, "It's The Middle East, Stupid!" how a major Middle East war might result from any Israeli move to curb Hamas in Gaza. Both writers are highly regarded authorities on the region. (Both articles required for WREL 374)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hamas: The Strategic Use of Rocket Attacks
For several years Hamas and other Palestinian groups have been firing short-range rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza, mostly aimed at the nearby Israeli city of Siderot. Although one cannot know with certainty what is in the minds of the leaders of these groups, it is possible to hazard a guess concerning their short and long-term strategic objectives. Short-term, Hamas may want to create a situation in which the Israelis, unable to stop the rockets by conventional military or diplomatic means, agree to a hudna, a truce in which, to start with, several hundred Palestinian prisoners are exchanged for the single Israeli prisoner held by Hamas, Gaza is assured normal fuel, food and electricity supplies, and the border to Egypt is reopened, monitored Egyptian border, and Hamas is recognized as the power in charge of Gaza. Such a deal would be a model for a later truce for the West Bank, if and when, Hamas gains control of the territory. Such an agreement would be a strategic defeat for Israel because Hamas is openly committed to its destruction and will make no deal that includes recognition of Israel's right to exist. It would also be unacceptable to the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Jordan, none of which have any interest in enhancing the power of a radical Ismamist regime in Gaza. The long range strategic goal of Hamas might be to use its rockets over an ever-increasing area of Israel to make life untenable for Israelis and their state. This, however, might be a very dangerous policy to pursue because of the kinds of massive retaliations of which the Israelis are capable.
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has written an analysis of the dilemmas facing Israel in dealing with Gaza, "For Israel, Gaza Offers A Range of Risky Choices."
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has written an analysis of the dilemmas facing Israel in dealing with Gaza, "For Israel, Gaza Offers A Range of Risky Choices."
WREL Quiz February 27, 2008
WREL 374 QUIZ
On Bernard Lewis,
Semites and Anti-Semites
February 27, 2008
Answer three questions from the following list. One of the three questions on this list will be identified as a required question when the quiz starts. You have one hour.
1. Briefly describe the rise of racist theory in Europe and explain how it influenced the implementation of the Holocaust.
2. What government was responsible for the first major anti-Semitic campaign in post-World War II Europe? Briefly describe the campaign.
3. Describe the confusion of race and language in the designation of certain peoples as Aryan and others as Semites. What location is believed to have been the originating point of Semitic language speakers. In addition to Hebrew and Arabic, name three other languages regarded as Semitic.
4. Briefly describe the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe from 1648 to 1882.
5. What is Zionism? Briefly describe its rise in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
6. Briefly describe the rise of modern anti-Semitism up to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933.
7. Briefly describe the career of Theodore Herzl
8. What was the traditional Muslim attitude toward the Jews and how did it change with the birth of the State of Israel.
9. What was the role of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in forming an Arab-Nazi alliance during World War II?
10. Briefly describe “the war against Zionism”
On Bernard Lewis,
Semites and Anti-Semites
February 27, 2008
Answer three questions from the following list. One of the three questions on this list will be identified as a required question when the quiz starts. You have one hour.
1. Briefly describe the rise of racist theory in Europe and explain how it influenced the implementation of the Holocaust.
2. What government was responsible for the first major anti-Semitic campaign in post-World War II Europe? Briefly describe the campaign.
3. Describe the confusion of race and language in the designation of certain peoples as Aryan and others as Semites. What location is believed to have been the originating point of Semitic language speakers. In addition to Hebrew and Arabic, name three other languages regarded as Semitic.
4. Briefly describe the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe from 1648 to 1882.
5. What is Zionism? Briefly describe its rise in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
6. Briefly describe the rise of modern anti-Semitism up to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933.
7. Briefly describe the career of Theodore Herzl
8. What was the traditional Muslim attitude toward the Jews and how did it change with the birth of the State of Israel.
9. What was the role of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in forming an Arab-Nazi alliance during World War II?
10. Briefly describe “the war against Zionism”
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh
The last time a major Hezbollah leader was taken out was when Israelis assassinated Abbas Mussavi, Hezbollah’s first leader, in March of 1992. Iran's response was to mobilize Hezbollah operatives to carry out a suicide bombing on July 18, 1994 that leveled the seven-story building of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA), Buenos Aires’ Jewish community center. 85 men, women, and children were killed and more than 300 wounded in the greatest single assault on a Jewish target since World War II. The attack was approved by Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khameini, then as now, Iran's Supreme Leader, and Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani, president of Iran and widely regarded as a "moderate." The professional in charge of carrying out the attack on the AMIA was none other than Imad Mughniyeh.
Whoever killed Mughniyeh took out a "big fish," one of the biggest. It is widely assumed that the Israelis were behind the assassination. It is consistent with their fighting Hamas and other enemies of Israel by targeting the known leaders. Caroline Glick, the Harvard trained deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, for which she writes a weekly column. She has written an essay dealing with the question of "Who wanted Mughniyeh, "Mughniyeh's true legacy" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2007).
Mohammad Bazzi, a Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations who is writing a book on Hezbollah, was interviewed on the assassination on February 14, 2008, "Who Killed Imad Mugniyah?" He offers an alternative perspective. It is also worth noting.
Finally, a Pakistani Islamist web site, "Pakistan Land of the Pure" describing the memorial ceremony for Mughniyeh in Beirut is worthy of note. The principal speech was delivered by Hassan Nasrallah, the current leader of Hezbollah, spoke at the memorial gathering in Beirut. Nasrallah and the other who spoke take it for granted that Israel was behind the assassination and promise a terrible revenge, not necessarily on Israel and Israeli assets, but on Jewish targets throughout the world. Usually, mainstream opponents of Israel claim that they oppose Zionism not Jews and Judaism outside of Israel. We know from the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires that Hezbollah is not making an empty threat.
Whoever killed Mughniyeh took out a "big fish," one of the biggest. It is widely assumed that the Israelis were behind the assassination. It is consistent with their fighting Hamas and other enemies of Israel by targeting the known leaders. Caroline Glick, the Harvard trained deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, for which she writes a weekly column. She has written an essay dealing with the question of "Who wanted Mughniyeh, "Mughniyeh's true legacy" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2007).
Mohammad Bazzi, a Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations who is writing a book on Hezbollah, was interviewed on the assassination on February 14, 2008, "Who Killed Imad Mugniyah?" He offers an alternative perspective. It is also worth noting.
Finally, a Pakistani Islamist web site, "Pakistan Land of the Pure" describing the memorial ceremony for Mughniyeh in Beirut is worthy of note. The principal speech was delivered by Hassan Nasrallah, the current leader of Hezbollah, spoke at the memorial gathering in Beirut. Nasrallah and the other who spoke take it for granted that Israel was behind the assassination and promise a terrible revenge, not necessarily on Israel and Israeli assets, but on Jewish targets throughout the world. Usually, mainstream opponents of Israel claim that they oppose Zionism not Jews and Judaism outside of Israel. We know from the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires that Hezbollah is not making an empty threat.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Persian Gulf and the Future of the Middle East
For a very long time, many western politicians and pundits have claimed that "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to peace, stability, and constructive development in the Middle East. When former Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted his new position as Middle East Peace Envoy of the "Quartet," the United States, Russia, the European Unon, and the United Nations, he told Parliament, "The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community - that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution."
A different opinion has been expressed by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies of the Council of Foreign Relations and Vali R. Nasr, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University in their article, "The Costs of Containing Iran: Washington's Misguided New Middle East Policy" published in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2008.
Both men are important authorities on Iran. Both are fluent in its language. I agree with them that the political center of gravity of the Middle East is no longer in Israel-Palestine-Lebanon but in the Persian Gulf. Where I disagree somewhat is in their judgment that, "Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood." They may be correct, but nevertheless there is a dangerous messianic-apocalyptic trend among some senior Iranian leaders. The jury is out on who will ultimately prevail, but if the messianic-apocalyptic tendency carries the day in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today.
A different opinion has been expressed by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies of the Council of Foreign Relations and Vali R. Nasr, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University in their article, "The Costs of Containing Iran: Washington's Misguided New Middle East Policy" published in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2008.
Both men are important authorities on Iran. Both are fluent in its language. I agree with them that the political center of gravity of the Middle East is no longer in Israel-Palestine-Lebanon but in the Persian Gulf. Where I disagree somewhat is in their judgment that, "Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood." They may be correct, but nevertheless there is a dangerous messianic-apocalyptic trend among some senior Iranian leaders. The jury is out on who will ultimately prevail, but if the messianic-apocalyptic tendency carries the day in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran?
On September 21, 2004, Iran celebrated her “Sacred Defense Week” with a military parade commemorating Iraq’s 1980 attack and the eight-year war that followed. A principal feature of the parade was the display of Iran’s Shahab-2 ballistic missile and the introduction of the newly developed Shahab-3. A banner was draped over the side of the Shahab 2 with the message, “ISRAEL SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE MAP”; another banner reading “WE WILL CRUSH AMERICA UNDER OUR FEET” was draped over the side of a trailer carrying the more advanced Shahab-3 missile.
The messages were no idle threats. Long-range ballistic missiles have few, if any, peaceful uses. No country goes to the enormous expense of producing technologically sophisticated missiles like the Shahab-3 or the Shahab-4 for any purpose other than carrying a nuclear or a biological bomb. And, an official commentary on the missiles was carried live on state television openly stating: "These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes wherever he is." The Shahab-3, based on a North Korean update of the Soviet Scud missile, was Iran's most advanced missile. It had a range of 800 miles and a payload of 1,540 pounds enabling it to strike almost any Middle Eastern target, including Tel Aviv, Ankara, Riyadh, Cairo, as well as U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran also possesses the Shahab-4 missile and is working on a missile with range of 1,875 miles. Such a missile would put every major European capital within range.
From the start of the 1979 Revolution, mixed messages have come out of Iran. Enthusiastic crowds responded to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s characterization of America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan” by chanting “Death to America; Death to Israel.” Clearly, some officials, both Iranian and foreign, take such threats literally. Others, both Iranian and foreign, insist that Iranians do not really mean what they say.
The most extreme threats have come from religious and political extremists, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies. On October 26, 2005 during the final week of Ramadan, Ahmadinejad repeated to Teheran university students that “that Israel must be wiped off the map of the earth.” More cautious elements both inside Iran and in the Arab world sought to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad’s threat, but the Iranian president had no intention of being explained away. Two days later, cheered on by thousands of supporters, he repeated the threat and reminded the world of his official status: "My words are the Iranian nation's words."
Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threat was but the latest in a long series of threats by Iranians promising Israel’s destruction. On December 14, 2001, in an address at Tehran University, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president of Iran and widely considered to be a “moderate,” stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the [their] global arrogance would come to a dead end because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." Moreover, not only did Rafsanjani threaten Israel with annihilation, he also played a singularly important role in creating Iran’s nuclear weapons program with which to carry out the threat.
Israel's leaders in both the political and the cultural spheres have characterized the Iranian position as`an "existential threat," thus indicating that they take Iran's threats with the utmost seriousness and if they believed that Iran was ready to carry out its threat, they might very well strike first.
What would be the likely outcome of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? In a comprehensive analysis on the subject, Andrew Cordesman,"Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War," one of the most widely respected American strategists, has come to a very different conclusion than Rafsanjani. He has concluded that, though seriously wounded, Israel would survive both demographically and economically. His analysis includes photos, graphs and text, and is perhaps the most comprehensive current analysis publicly available on the subject. Also available here is a brief summary of Cordesman's analysis by Daniel Pipes, "The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange."
In reality, there could be no winners in such an apocalypse. Cordesman got it right when he concluded his analysis with the following comment: "The War Game Paradox: The Only Way to Win is Not to Play."
The messages were no idle threats. Long-range ballistic missiles have few, if any, peaceful uses. No country goes to the enormous expense of producing technologically sophisticated missiles like the Shahab-3 or the Shahab-4 for any purpose other than carrying a nuclear or a biological bomb. And, an official commentary on the missiles was carried live on state television openly stating: "These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes wherever he is." The Shahab-3, based on a North Korean update of the Soviet Scud missile, was Iran's most advanced missile. It had a range of 800 miles and a payload of 1,540 pounds enabling it to strike almost any Middle Eastern target, including Tel Aviv, Ankara, Riyadh, Cairo, as well as U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran also possesses the Shahab-4 missile and is working on a missile with range of 1,875 miles. Such a missile would put every major European capital within range.
From the start of the 1979 Revolution, mixed messages have come out of Iran. Enthusiastic crowds responded to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s characterization of America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan” by chanting “Death to America; Death to Israel.” Clearly, some officials, both Iranian and foreign, take such threats literally. Others, both Iranian and foreign, insist that Iranians do not really mean what they say.
The most extreme threats have come from religious and political extremists, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies. On October 26, 2005 during the final week of Ramadan, Ahmadinejad repeated to Teheran university students that “that Israel must be wiped off the map of the earth.” More cautious elements both inside Iran and in the Arab world sought to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad’s threat, but the Iranian president had no intention of being explained away. Two days later, cheered on by thousands of supporters, he repeated the threat and reminded the world of his official status: "My words are the Iranian nation's words."
Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threat was but the latest in a long series of threats by Iranians promising Israel’s destruction. On December 14, 2001, in an address at Tehran University, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president of Iran and widely considered to be a “moderate,” stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the [their] global arrogance would come to a dead end because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." Moreover, not only did Rafsanjani threaten Israel with annihilation, he also played a singularly important role in creating Iran’s nuclear weapons program with which to carry out the threat.
Israel's leaders in both the political and the cultural spheres have characterized the Iranian position as`an "existential threat," thus indicating that they take Iran's threats with the utmost seriousness and if they believed that Iran was ready to carry out its threat, they might very well strike first.
What would be the likely outcome of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? In a comprehensive analysis on the subject, Andrew Cordesman,"Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War," one of the most widely respected American strategists, has come to a very different conclusion than Rafsanjani. He has concluded that, though seriously wounded, Israel would survive both demographically and economically. His analysis includes photos, graphs and text, and is perhaps the most comprehensive current analysis publicly available on the subject. Also available here is a brief summary of Cordesman's analysis by Daniel Pipes, "The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange."
In reality, there could be no winners in such an apocalypse. Cordesman got it right when he concluded his analysis with the following comment: "The War Game Paradox: The Only Way to Win is Not to Play."
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Damascus Affair of 1840
One of the events in the Muslim world that pointed to the rise of anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century was the Damascus Affair of 1840 in which a Capuchin monk in Damascus, Father Thomas, disappeared with his servant. The Jews of Damascus were accused of killing him to secure Christian blood which allegedly was required for their rituals. This was known as the Blood Libel. The accusation was very old but wholly without substance. It was often related to the Passover meal and seen as a satanic Jewish Holy Communion. The libel accusation was energetically fostered by Ratti-Menton, the French consul at Damascus and the Quai Dorsay, the French Foreign Office, that saw the incident as a means of strengthening French-Muslim bonds at Jewish expense. In the twentieth century, France was usually hostile to Jewish ambitions in Palestine.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Do Presidents Make History or Does History Make Presidents?
George Friedman of Stratfor Strategic Forcasting, an influential authority on intelligence and international politics, has written an important piece titled "Foreign Policy and the President's Irrelevance." At a time when America is going through the lengthy process of choosing its next president, Friedman asked the question of whether presidents make history or history makes presidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
