Monday, October 22, 2007

Viewing victory as defeat

I like A.E. a lot, but I am often puzzled by his analysis. His "Sideshow in the Desert" continues this trend. Take this paragraph, for instance:

Finally, Israel faces a grave threat from within – a threat worsened by its own counter-productive actions. The Israeli-American strategy of marginalizing Hamas and backing the unpopular and corrupt Fatah has led to open Palestinian civil war and humanitarian disaster in Gaza, which has now been cut off from electricity and fuel and declared a “hostile entity” by the Israeli government. Israel has also carried out a strategy of targeted assassinations and limited military incursions within Gaza in the hopes of undermining Hamas and deterring its frequent rocket attacks.


Isreal is a small country surrounded by hostile regimes. The only way such a state can continue to exist is if her neighbors distrust her neighbors more than they distrust her. (The United Arab Republic was so dangerous because it suggested that the Arabs would put aside their mutual animosity to finally destroy Israel.) The break-up of the Palestinian Authority into Fatah and Hamas controlled territory is a wonderful improvement for Israel, because it creates a revolutionary state whose main objective is the overthrow of her other neighbors.

Yet A.E. considers such progress "counter-productive."

Strange.

17:32 Posted in Israel | Permalink | Comments (28)

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Catholicgauze Hacks Google Earth, Part II

CG, who just finished from using free GIS tools to outline the Oregon Trail, returns by adding overlays to Google's free globe:


The Holy Land at the Time of Christ


Good work, CG!

Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Jews, Reloaded

Barnett, T.P.M. (2006). Israeli nationalism v. globalism. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. December 31, 2006. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/12/dave_goldberg_wrote_tom_what.html.

My post which criticized Tom Barnett's attack on Israel now is just one response amongst many. Jimmy Carter's intellectual dishonesty is well known, but now Tom Barnett says that such is not important:

Carter's argument needs to be dealt with head on, not seemingly discredited on the basis of factual errors and interpretations.


Dr. Barnett doesn't rehash "identity" (whatever he means by that), but now is concerned with the concept of race:

In the end, Israel's biggest long-term problem is that its nationalism is race-specific in a globalizing world where such state-sponsored "affirmative action" comes off as hopelessly discriminatory, whether you're talking Muslims in Tel Aviv or Paris or Los Angeles.


The central claim in the above sentence is that Israel is a Racist State.

Very lefty, and very wrong. Israel is a "Jewish State," certainly, but what does this mean? A race is a genetically related breeding population, of which "Jews" are not. There are historical breeding populations, such as the Cohenim, who make a disproportionate percentage of Israel's population, but then the Cohanim make up a disproportionate percentage of America's population, as well.

The "Jewish" in "Jewish State" refers to membership in a recognized a hybrid patrilineal/matrilineal tribe, and membership is not effected by skin color, skull formations, height, degree of genetic relatedness, etc. Barnett would be accurate to say that Israel is a patriotic state, but then so is America. Barnett would be accurate to say that Israel is a tribal state, but then are the Indian Reservations he describes as "prosaic."

Still, Barnett's post was good to read before I begin the Spring 2007 semester. One of the classes I am taking, Genetic Development, features a discussion on Leftist interpretations on race (see my four part series on the subject: 1, 2, 3, 4). Clearly, that brand of pseudo-racialist mumbo-jumbo has spread beyond the halls of psychology departments to infect even top-notch globalization pundits.

20:30 Posted in Israel, Thomas Barnett | Permalink | Comments (9) | Tags: jews

Thursday, December 28, 2006

The Jews

Barnett, Thomas P. (2006). Jimmy Carter's new book. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. December 28, 2006. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/12/jimmy_carters_new_book.html.

An unusually poorly thought-out piece from Thomas PM Barnett on Israel and the Jews

Barnett, like much of the Franco-Arab pseudo-intelligentsia, is under the mistaken assumption that identity matters and that, more specifically, people are willing to fight for it:

Israel's fears [with regards to] to a loss of cultural identity are just a precusor to that of the Arab world's fears [with regards to] to a loss of cultural identity.


Israel's paranoia regarding a return to non-Jewish hegemony over the last remaining concentration of Jews has a lot less to do with "identity" and a lot more to do with a history of genocide. The foolishness of allowing the same play twice would be equivalent to, say, accepting an Islamist guerrilla-state in the horn of Africa.

As Israel is a diverse country with multiple societies (think secular, Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, etc), I have little idea what Tom means when he writes:

Both cultures [Israeli and Arab] reach for apartheid-like defenses, feeling completely justified in that response, because the preservation of cultural identity is crucial in their minds, as in, worth fighting and dying over.


I'll chalk up his unfortunate post to too-clever-by-half-ism, a common curse of gifted writers who get carried away by their own rhetorical brilliance.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

A New Middle East, Part IV: Islam is the Answer

The day is won. Israel has succeeded in its generational struggle with Arab National-Secularism.

Yet now the medium-term interests of the United States and the Jewish State diverge. The United States, the world's leader, desires a "rule-set reset" across the Middle East, replacing the divded and confused Arab regimes with something sustainable. Yet such division and confusion is precisely in Israel's interests, because weak and disoriented enemies cannot threaten her. In particularly, the map of Israel's near-abroad that America must strive for will naturally spook our allies in Jerusalem.


A Levant Worth Creating: Blue = Globalized States, Yellow = Traditional States, Purple = Muslim Brotherhood States


American actions not in Israel's preferred direction occurred soon after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and can be seen by comparing the recommendations of the seminal 1996 paper, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.


with what actually happened

  • Attempted implementation of an indigenous, secular, Shia government

  • Actual implementation of an indigenous, religious, Shia government


Israel desired a restored Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq to calm the Middle East, as soon as possible. The United States desired a Shia Iraq to explode the Middle East, as soon as possible.

Such a disagreement extends beyond the failing state of Iraq to Israel's immediate neighborhood. With the internal remnants of Arab National-Secularism, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah patronage machine, in shambles, Israel's best medium-term future was a globalized Lebanon and weak (and easily blackmailed) Egyptian and Syrian regimes. Yet America's goal is continuing the 3/20 Revolution wish must include replacing the Arab National-Secularist governments of Egypt and Syria with the Muslim Brothers. The Global War on Terrorism requires replacing dysfunctional worldly rule with Islamic Law.

Sharia's modernizing track record in the Middle East is positive, National-Secularism's is negative. Don't believe it? Compare the religiosity of Egyptians and Iranians. Compare the strength of Egypt and Iranians.

In a recent post, Tom Barnett wrote:

And yes, forcing us all to live together in connectedness (known today by the moniker of globalization) will force a tremendous amount of change on both those who welcome it (by all indications, the bulk of the populations throughout the Gap) and those who revile it (a small minority who will fight these changes to the very end, and yes, for them, the conflict will be "genocidal" in that they will not survive it).

In that conflict process, which I believe is both inevitable and good, it will be harder before it gets easier, but putting off the hard part only ensures greater conflict and death totals down the line, because if integration isn't achieved, colonial mercantlist-style economic transaction patterns will predominate, as will local authoritarianism and failed states, and the death totals associated with those pathways will (as they do today) dwarf the death totals of integrating conflicts (and if you don't believe that, then you are woefully ignorant of what's happening every day in Africa right now).

The challenge before us is not one of deciding "yes" or "no" to this historical process. That train left the station a generation ago when the East decided to join the global economy.

The only question that remains is how we rise to this challenge. How we get smarter about how we wage both war and peace.

To pretend that the choice lies between war and peace is self-delusional, just like pretending we must choose between globalization-the-integration-process and globalization-the-disintegrating/reformatting-process. Life is simply not that binary.


Israel, being only a state, is too weak to influence systems and instead must play for time, merely surviving into her surroundings are magically improved. But America is a system-level power, and America has the power to change the nature of Israel's surroundings.

It is by bringing 3/20 to Cairo and Damascus that we can truly prevent another 9/11. Redirect the violent feedback of the National-Secularists to the National-Secularists. Bring the rage of crooked Arab economies to crooked Arab states. Shrink the Gap by destroying-in-detail the National-Secularism that helped expand it.




A New Middle East, a tdaxp series
A New Middle East 1: Our Vanquished Enemies
A New Middle East 2: Iran
A New Middle East 3: Israel
A New Middle East 4: Islam is the Answer

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

A New Middle East, Part III: Israel

The question is which is preferable... 2000


Israel Surrounded by Arab National-Seularist Regimes


or now


Rollback of Arab National-Secularism


The first map, the world as it was before George Bush and Ariel Sharon, shows an Israel surrounded by Arab National-Secularist regimes: Yasser Arafat's Fatah-led PLO in the east, and two states controlled by the Baath party, Lebanon and Syria. The situation gets even worse down south, as another Arab National-Secularist regime, Egypt, borders Israel on the Sinai. The only half-way normal neighbor Israel had was the tribalist Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Arab National-Secularism was one of the worst products of the twentieth century, the intellectual offshoot of German National-Socialism and an ideology may have done less harm if it ruled for a few bloody years (as the NSDAP did in Germany) whether than perverting generations of minds.

If Arab National-Secularism merely left lifeless, frozen states in its midst, fine. But National-Secularism has done worse than freezing the cultures of the states it takes over, but it begins destroying the culture. Arab National-Secularism, by taking away the traditional meaning of life while not replacing it with economic growth, leaves behind a murderous rage. In states like Egypt and Syria it has so-far been contained by massacres and political repression. In countries where it can break free, such as Iraq and Lebanon, the consequence is state failure and civil war.

Israel's greatest enemy has been the National-Secularism and, because of its wise actions, Israel is in the final phases of destroying Arab National-Secularism as a political force.

The recent Israel War in Lebanon did not succeed in destroying Hezbollah as a fighting force -- it failed as a war in the context of war -- but it succeeded in further rolling back the Arab National-Secularist block that has been Israel's main enemy. The War in Lebanon succeeded as a War in the Context of Everything Else<. In the context of war, Isarel's failure to disarm Hezbollah makes Hizbullah stronger. In the context of everything else, Israel's failure to disarm Hezbollah weakens Syria (which was forced to stay out of the fight due to fear of Israeli retaliation and Muslim Brother reaction).

Lebanon is now even further away from Syria's sphere of influence than before the Hezbollah War. All actors see yet another failure by an Arab National-Secularist government, and another success by a Shia Theocratic government.

Lebanon will now be contested between the country's indigenous, globally-oriented, Catholic-Sunni majority, and a smaller but well armed Shia minority. It is important that whatever country leads the SysAdmin effort in that country, be if France, Italy, or someone else, that the Catholic-Sunni majority's interests are favored. Yet it is a mistake to believe that just because Hezbollah won the war Israel must lose the peace. On the contrary, by further weakening its primary 4GW adversary, Israel is closer to "peace" than ever.




A New Middle East, a tdaxp series
A New Middle East 1: Our Vanquished Enemies
A New Middle East 2: Iran
A New Middle East 3: Israel
A New Middle East 4: Islam is the Answer

A Zionist's Apology to Enraged Muslims

This may be the bravest post I have ever written


Ania Mendelshtam


After profiling the work of Amir Normandi, a photographer and a blogger, I received some constructive feedback:

fuck you all you fucking bastard on this website.. you want to spoil the reputation of islam by hiring those shit face girls....... your the shit and the most fucking and idiot assholes


and, also kindly

israel fuck you bastared


Clearly, some readers are concerned with subtle anti-Islamic messages in visual representations of Muslim women. Perhaps the reason thousands of Muslims throughout the Gap riot, kill, and leave hurtful comments is a rational, universal, human reaction to cartoons and such. Adam of The Metropolis Times and I responded to the Muhammed cartoon controversy by running holocaust cartoons. (Strangely, no Jews threatened to kill either of us, but presumably the Isaacian horde is approaching as we speak.) We try always to be fair.

Now I see that this was not sufficient, and photos of beautiful Muslim girls must be balanced by exploitative imagery of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists.

With a heavy heart, and expecting a IDF air strike at any moment, I accept this heavy burden.



I thank the somber folks at Jewlicious for pointing me to a fine example of Yisraeli carnal reparations, The Israeli Celebrity Source.

Read more ...

Sunday, August 20, 2006

A New Middle East, Part I: Our Vanquished Enemies

"The Big Bang spreads . . . the rough way," by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 7 October 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002427.html (from tdaxp).

"President's Radio Address," by George Bush, White House Radio, 19 August 2006, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060819.html.

As George Bush assumed power in January 2001, the Middle East was in a dire state. The al-Qaeda backed Taliban government ruled Afghanistan, while the noxious rule of the Arab Nationalist-Secularist governments (some in uneasy league with America, others opposed) ruled Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria. If al Qaeda was a rapist, doing damage quickly and violently, the Nationalist-Secularists were parents with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. While al Qaeda was more mindlessly violent, the National-Secularists had been disastrous for their states, rolling back the traditional governments and traditional societies that once existed in those lands. The National-Secularists, from the Ba'ath, to Fatah, to the rest, were politically and intellectually bankrupt.

-


Red = National-Secularist, Green = Shia, Yellow = Tribal, Black = al Qaeda, Blue = Globalist


Since then the situation has changed for the better. In three states the National-Secularists have been driven out: by the US military in Iraq, by the people in Palestine, and by a combination of internal factions and external pressure in Lebanon. And Afghanistan, of course, was liberated in Operational Enduring Freedom.


Red = National-Secularist, Green = Shia, Yellow = Tribal, Blue-Geen = Contested between Iran and Globalist, Blue = Globalist, Purple = Muslim Brothers


That these places are unstable is not proof that Bush's plan is failing, but that it is working. As the President recently said

It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.


The same is true, of course, when Palestine, where the Muslim Brother's local branch, Hamas, is squeezed between a justly hostile Israeli and unjustly hostile National-Secularist dead-enders.

If we are to judge the Global War on Terrorism by the standards of Thomas Barnett:

In the end, what will have to change for all this violence in the Middle East to stop is not our withdrawal, but political reform in the region. Keeping this fight suppressed, or having it exported to our shores like it was on 9/11 is certainly a safer route for the local authoritarian regimes. Then again, I think 9/11 put us past caring about those regimes' stability like we used to.

Bush basically runs a race with Osama: who can destabilize the region's regimes first? Both sides want change, but only one wants to replace the current autocracies with a religious dictatorship. What Bush wants solves the problem. What Osama wants merely extends it.


Then we are clearly winning this Long War. We destabilized Afghanistan, throwing al Qaeda out of their only State. We destabilized National-Secularist Iraq, and now contend with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State. We destabilize National-Secularist Lebanon, and now content with Iran (not al Qaeda) in seeing which of us has the most influence in that State.

In this New Middle East we are building, we will have to be careful. We will have to deal wisely with the new regional indigenous hegemon, Iran. But we will not have to fear al Qaeda or the National-Secularists. They will be killed. That is why we can leave Iraq now.




A New Middle East, a tdaxp series
A New Middle East 1: Our Vanquished Enemies
A New Middle East 2: Iran
A New Middle East 3: Israel
A New Middle East 4: Islam is the Answer

Monday, August 07, 2006

Israel as 4GW Victory Machine

The Israelis are expert at 4th Generation Wars. This style of war, which focuses on changing the mental orientation of opponents, is normally dangerous for state powers. France lost 4G Wars in Vietnam and Algeria, while the United States was previously set back in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.

Yet the Israelis are the exception. With a patience often associated with non-state actors, the Jewish State destroyed the nationalist-secularist Palestine Liberation Organization. Exploiting internal divisions among the Palestinian population originally seen during the First Intifada in 1987, Jerusalem began increasing the moral, mental, and physical isolation of the PLO. The first major attack was the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, a controversial move to delegitimize the PLO by removing its reason for being. Low intensity war (with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat repeatedly maneuvered into the role of the senseless aggressor) waged for more than a decade, with Israel ever working to isolate the PLO from its tools for power.


David's Patient Nation


Israeli Victory came on January 25, 2006, when Hamas (a spin-off of the technocratic-fundamentalist Muslim Brothers) trounced the PLO's main political party, Al-Fatah, in free Palestinian elections.

It appears that Israel is using a similar strategy to build victory in Lebanon. Israel recognizes that isolation leads to defeat, so she attempts to maximize her connectivity while minimizing the connectivity of her enemy, Hezbollah. In particular, Israel is attempting to maximize Hezbollah's physical disconnectivity. Israel's airstrikes against roads and bridges that lead to Syria are widely recognized, but attacks on infrastructure by themselves could not do much. There is no "systempunkt" -- the mythical list of physical infrastructure targets that can permanently destroy an enemy -- so Israel instead focuses on changing the long-term correlation of forces.

Behind the scene diplomacy by Israel and her lobbies forced the military expulsion of Syria from Lebanon. Indeed, Dawlat Israil is turning the security situation of Lebanon on its head, from a Hezbollah-friendly state in the Syrian orbit to a country that faces a French anti-Hezbollah invasion. That prospect was viewed by some as impossible when it was first floated last year, but momentum is building.

In summary, Israel is destroying Hezbollah just like she destroyed the PLO: patiently. Israel is excelling at dual-use attacks, not just degrading Hezbollah's firepower in the short-term but changing the facts on the ground that allow Hezbollah to thrive in the long-term.

Bravo Israel!

Friday, August 04, 2006

Gap Debating Society v. Core State

"OIC is concerned over the UNSC failure to halt Israeli aggression on Lebanon," Syrian Arab News Agency, 3 August 2006, http://www.sana.org/eng/22/2006/08/03/54464.htm (from Democratic Underground).

Some at that toothless talking club, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has (predictably) joined the anti-Israeli chorus:

Participants at the emergency meeting of the executive committee of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference vehemently condemned the constant Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine.

The conferees, in a final statement Thursday, held Israel the full responsible for the loss of innocent lives particularly in Qana's second massacre that claimed lives of some 60 innocent persons mostly children and women.

" The OIC is deeply concerned over failure of the UN Security Council to take necessary measures to impose a cease-fire in Lebanon and end the Israeli brutal onslaughts on Lebanon," the statement said.

" The U.N. Security Council is demanded to undertake its responsibility without any further delay by deciding on and enforcing an immediate and unconditional comprehensive cease-fire in Lebanon," the participants underlined.

On Palestine, the Islamic states' leaders demanded of the Israeli complete and unconditioned pull out of the occupied Palestinian territories including western Jerusalem, underscoring necessity of setting up the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.


Why predictably? Because the OIC is a defining part of the Gap. We should expect nothing less in this fight of the Core in the Gap -- this Core intervention in a Gap civil war.

23:50 Posted in Greater Syria, Israel | Permalink | Comments (0) | Tags: ngos, oic, lebanon

1 2 3 Next