crethiplethi » barry rubin

Waarom Je Mij Niet Op Al-Jazeera Zal Zien

Crethi Plethi — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:21:01 +0000

Dat professor Barry Rubin niet op zijn achterhoofd is gevallen wisten we al wel, maar de scherpte die hij hier aan de dag legt geeft wel aan dat hij oprecht en met veel deskundigheid het Midden Oosten analyseert. Barry Rubin is namelijk helemaal niet narcistisch ingesteld en heeft er geen belang bij om als opvulling of met holle woorden in de spotlights te staan. Dit in tegenstelling tot de vele anti-Israel lobbyisten, die over elkaar heen buitelen zodra een camera op hen gericht wordt, met hun uit het verband gerukte halve waarheden, vooroordelen en ondeskundigheid over de situatie in het Midden Oosten. Daarnaast is het wederom een voorbeeld hoe de media tracht om Israel continue in de beklaagdenbank te plaatsen, in plaats van de onderwerpen vanuit een objectief gezichtspunt en op de feiten gerelateerd aan de geschiedenis te benaderen. Zie hier het persoonlijke antwoord van Barry Rubin op een uitnodiging van Al-Jazeera, een Arabisch televisienetwerk gevestigd in Qatar, om op te treden in een discussieprogramma.

Gepubliceerd op 18 april, 2010; “If you join the circus you’ll end up as a clown: why you won’t be seeing me on Al-Jazeera.”

door Barry Rubin,

Opmerking: Ik zou het niet erg vinden om de discussie aan te gaan met een Fatah-functionaris of een Palestijnse academicus – en dat heb ik in het verleden ook gedaan – om de problemen van het Midden Oosten conflict te bespreken, maar er is een belangrijk verschil tussen een debat met iemand die serieus is en een media circus waar het onderwerp doelbewust wordt ingezet in het kader van een propaganda stunt.

De ontvangen uitnodiging:

(Naam van de afzender verwijderd)
[Aan Barry Rubin]
Betreft: Al Jazeera English ‘RIZ KHAN INTERVIEW AANVRAAG.’

Goedemorgen professor Levin [sic],

Zou u geïnteresseerd zijn om komende dinsdag in de “The Riz Khan Show” op te treden en deel te nemen aan een debat met als onderwerp “Is er [sic] een partner voor vrede in Israël?” en meer in het algemeen, de onderwerpen van de komende verkiezingen in Israël ['Er zijn geen aankomende verkiezingen.' BarryRubin], de Obama Nucleaire top en de Amerikaans-Israëlische betrekkingen? Uri Davis, Israëlisch professor en lid van de Fatah Revolutionaire Raad, zal de andere gast zijn.

“The Riz Khan show” is een interactieve half uur durend interview programma dat live wordt uitgezonden om 12.30 uur New York tijd / 17:30 uur Londen tijd vanuit een studio in Washington, DC. Het is de belangrijkste discussieprogramma van Al-Jazeera voor prime time ‘s avonds in Zuid-Azië en het Midden-Oosten….

Reactie:

Geachte mevrouw…

Allereerst, mijn naam is Rubin, niet Levin.

Ten tweede, als het zou gaan om een serieus programma om een belangrijke kwestie te bespreken, dan zou ik graag verschijnen. Maar omdat u als andere gast Uri Davis uitnodigd, die een ultra-extremist en propagandist is en geen serieuze geleerde of analist, heb ik geen interesse. Trouwens, hij is ook geen professor, maar een docent, en al helemaal niet een academicus.

Het is zoiets als een Amerikaanse professor te vragen om te verschijnen in een show met Adam Gadahn van Al-Qaeda met als onderwerp de vraag of Amerika een terroristische staat is. Door het uitnodigen van een dergelijke persoon geef je daarmee aan dat de show een media circus is in plaats van een ingewikkelde bespreking van belangrijke kwesties. Het zou in zo’n sfeer onmogelijk zijn om tijdens de discussie iets anders te doen dan te trachten de schandalige verklaringen te weerleggen die hij zou maken.

Daarnaast door het uitnodigen van Davis, gedefinieerd als een ‘Israëlische’, probeer je ongetwijfeld te impliceren dat hij wellicht een gezichtspunt vanuit het land vertegenwoordigd of iemand die goed op de hoogte is van Israël. Dit is ook niet waar.

Tot slot, door als onderwerp de vraag neer te leggen “of Israël een partner voor vrede is”, wil je klaarblijkelijk de discussie op voorhand uitsluiten of de Palestijnse Autoriteit wel een partner voor vrede is. U neemt dat blijkbaar aan als een vaststaand feit, terwijl ik in feite zou willen zeggen dat dit juist de belangrijkste kwestie is.

Dus, het programma is opgezet om het belasteren van Israël te vergemakkelijken, zowel in onderwerp als in samenstelling. Als u in de toekomst mij wilt uitnodigen voor een goed programma over deze kwesties zou ik blij zijn om deel te nemen.

Overigens, door dingen te doen als deze komt dat niet de geloofwaardigheid van uw programma ten goede, noch het krijgen van respect dat het anders zou verdienen.

Met vriendelijke groet, Barry Rubin (niet Levin)

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

The World’s Double Standard against Israel

Crethi Plethi — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:03:40 +0000

by Crethi Plethi

You can read this article in Dutch, here.

Yesterday, I read an interesting article from Barry Rubin (NATO kills civilians accidentally) about the double standard the world is showing when it comes to civilian casualties as a result of military interventions by Israeli forces in Gaza or Western forces in Afghanistan.

It reminded me of a discussion I had with a dutch (socialist) parliamentarian, Martijn van Dam, a while ago. He is member of the dutch social-democratic party, PVDA, and PVDA’s spokesman for foreign policy and media. At this moment, the PVDA is part of a coalition government in the Netherlands with two dutch Christian-democratic parties (CDA and ChristenUnie). The PVDA is part of the biased dutch anti-Israel lobby and plays a stimulating role in Israel bashing, spreading anti-Israel bias in the media and supporting the Goldstone report and sanctioning Israeli economy and products. It will not surprise you that traditionally many of the Muslims living in the Netherlands are PVDA voters.

The Associated Press reports: “Twelve Afghans died Sunday when two rockets fired at insurgents missed their targets and struck house during the second day of NATO’s most ambitious effort yet to break the militants’ grip on the country’s dangerous south.”

Rubin writes in his article:

“Those twelve Afghans are, of course, civilians, a word the report omits in the lead, though it is mentioned further down in the story. Those militants are Taliban who could be called terrorists, though in some ways even that designation would be too generous. They brought a regime to Afghanistan which murdered thousands of people, treated women like cattle, and helped make possible the September 11, 2001, attacks that slaughtered 3,000 Americans… Later in the article it is mentioned in passing that the “militants” are firing on the U.S. Marines from civilian houses in the town, which is the kind of thing that leads to civilian deaths. This incident will quickly be forgotten, as have previous similar ones.

The discussion I had with Martijn van Dam was about a similar incident involving a dutch F-16 fighter plane when a precision bomb was dropped on a house where Taliban fighters and civilians were in the same compound, resulting in 13 people killed (4 Taliban fighters) including 3 women and 6 children and injuring 3 other civilians. I asked Martijn van Dam why he remained silent about this incident, when if it is Israel who causes civilian casualties, he (and the rest of the Dutch anti-Israel lobby) immediately condems Israeli actions and start accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians or worse, committing war crimes.

Rubin writes:

“If this incident happened due to Israeli rockets it would bring massive demonstrations, a UN report claiming that this proved Israel was a war criminal state, calls by many governments for sanctions against Israel, proposals by others for an international investigation, and a rationale for Western intellectuals to say that this country has no right to exist.Yet the errancy of these NATO rockets was no doubt an accident, just as happens sometimes (probably with far lower frequency in proportional terms) when Israel is defending itself from Hamas and Hizballah, two groups that seek genocide against its people. Such events are in the nature of warfare, and especially in the type of warfare pursued by Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban. Is it really so hard to understand these things?”

So, I ask you again, Martijn van Dam, is it really so hard to understand these things? Or do you have to support the anti-Israel agenda of your party? You don’t want to disappoint your (leftist-Muslim alliance) voters, do you? Honesty is a virtue, Mr. van Dam.

Rubin continues:

“Why, then, does Israel get such different treatment than this event in Marjah, Afghanistan (or the dutch incident in Helmand, Afghanistan)? There are lots of reasons but the outstanding one is this: the United States is a big powerful country which lots of people don’t want to alienate or attack. Israel is a small country without energetic, powerful defenders. Despite appearances, Israel is still “David,” while Hamas and Hizballah–backed in some manner by Iran, Muslim-majority countries, Arab states, and the Western left–is the “Goliath.”

Maybe Rubin is trying to appease his readers this time, because I’m not sure that the outstanding reason for this double standard is the fact that ‘lots of people don’t want to alienate or attack the US government.’ My impression in Europe is the contrary, lots of people are eager to alienate or attack the US government. I think that the hidden agenda of jew-hatred in the hearts of lots of people (in organizations, in our governments and in Muslim countries) makes them biased and double standard when it comes to Israel and Jews in the first place. I believe that this is the real outstanding reason for the double standard, because the next superpower could be China or Russia as well, but there is (and has been) always one Israel (Jew) to blame and that will never end. It asks a certain kind of courage to acknowledge to yourself that the reasons for the world wide struggle against Israel and Jews are based on progressive, Islamic, extremist or anti-semitic feelings. Our world system is dominated by these prejudices: for example, the UN is dominated by the Islamic countries and the Chinese and Russian veto’s. Fascism, left-wing extremism, nazism, Islamofascism, religious extremism, Islamism and radical socialism, they all share anti-semitic prejudices.

So what about my discussion with Martijn van Dam? I asked him if he could “indicate the difference between the Netherlands and Israel in this issue?” I pointed out that the dutch politicians remained silent about the Afghan casualties inflicted by the Dutch F-16 (or other NATO troops). Where Israel immediately and unconditionally is condemned by Dutch politicians, I hear no condemnation now. It sounds like a Palestinian life is of more value to Dutch politicians than an Afghan life? As soon as “our boys” (or NATO troops) are responsible for civilian deaths, “we” always acted carefully and suddenly it is inevitable that civilian casualties will be inflicted in fighting the Taliban… bla bla bla bla …. But not when it comes to Israel. What puzzles me is what people consider different between the Taliban and Hamas in using civilians as human shields in their way of fighting. Furthermore, I asked him to condemn the Dutch action and call it a possible Dutch War crime against humanity and start investigations on it. If not, than be silent about Israel as well.

Do you think he came up with a sufficient and well-thought answer? Think again. He answered as expected, with anti-Israel bias and double standard, hiding behind the anti-Israel lobby (in the UN) who tries to justify its anti-Israel bias by installing committees, missions and producing official documents full with anti-Israel rhetoric:

Martijn van Dam: “What happened is terrible. In the case of Israel we have argued for investigation, we now also ask for investigation. Maybe you can wait for answers, before you use big words. It was also the UN Goldstone mission that has concluded that Israel has committed war crimes, not me. The UN Committee believes that Israel targeted civilians and not selected carefully as you say. On the contrary.”

You may have noticed that an official investigation by the UN or by a Dutch Parliamentary committee or mission for the incident was never asked for or installed.

I reminded him that it’s usually the Dutch anti-Israel lobby who are using big words when Israel is concerned. Israel is the accused party, always and even without investigation. Hamas and the Taliban are not really different in background (Islamic terror groups who are Islamizing societies and impose Shari’a law), fighting in civilian areas and using civilians as human shields, and both are willing to sacrifice its own people and Hamas is seeking the destruction of Israel. I suggested to Martijn van Dam, to ask the UN for an investigation of the Dutch F-16 air strike led by Pakistan, Egypt and Cuba.

Martijn van Dam mentioned that the casualties caused by the Dutch F-16 air strike were an incident, whereas Israel (according to Martijn van Dam) systematically caused civilian deads. Well, calling between the 5,317 and 8,109 Afghan civilian deads (since the start of the war in 2001 by US-led troops and NATO forces) an incident, is quite double standard don’t you think? Next to that, Martijn van Dam pointed out that the Afghan government, the UN (UNAMA) and other organizations (Amnesty, Human Right Watch) always (can) investigate allegations of war crimes. Yes, they (could) do that, and what would the world have to say about the results?

And that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make here. The Afghan government or the UN don’t call for or investigate these incidents in Afghanistan as war crimes as they did after the Gaza war with the Goldstone Committee. Implying that Israel isn’t a democratic country which doesn’t investigates allegations of war crimes and not cooperates with unbiased and independent investigations is willfully trying to demonize Israel. In fact, its the Hamas and the Taliban who are acting besides all International Laws and Geneva Convention. Who is investigating those issues? When are politicians concerned about balanced facts and about civilian lives lost due to insurgent actions by Hamas and the Taliban?

Is Martijn van Dam a politician who hates Jews? No, he isn’t a jew-hater, but he certainly is a mainstream leftist politician who knows how to use political correct answers fitting in the anti-Israel pattern we see in Europe, the UN and the USA. Israel has nothing to gain with these policymakers and Israel has nothing to gain with Martijn van Dam’s party, PVDA.

It takes courage to acknowledge that the world is heading for a new holocaust. Is it really so hard to understand these things?

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Hamas needs a hand out

Crethi Plethi — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:43:07 +0000

Article from Barry Rubin, published on 22 november 2009 about the Hamas ceasefire declaration. Does this mean Hamas is renouncing terrorism? No, by no means at all. See also this report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

Important step? Hamas declares new ceasefire; launcing bid for massive aid for Gaza strip.

- by Barry Rubin -

Israel’s operation into the Gaza Strip last January and the embargo on aid has had an effect. Hamas is now announcing that it will stop attacks on Israel. This, in effect, ends Hamas’s renewal of the fighting a year ago. Here’s the problem: Is Hamas just stopping long enough to get the aid money?

An important press conference by Hamas’ Interior Minister Fathi Hamad has said the group made an agreement with all the Palestinian factions that they will stop firing rockets into Israel except in retaliation to Israeli operations. And since Israel usually attacks in response to rocket firings, that means a new ceasefire may occur. The press conference came immediately after a rocket was fired into Israel on November 21 that didn’t hit anything.

That announcement seems like good news but here are the problems:

– Hamas will continue smuggling in arms, including parts for more advanced missiles which can strike further into Israel. If Israel were to attack the tunnels to try to interdict this smuggling, this would be made to appear as Israel initiating hostilities.

– The main issue will be a Hamas bid, which will find some support in the West —but how much?— to start large-scale aid to Gaza, as has been promised by the Obama Administration among others. Western statements insist that the money won’t go to Hamas or its front groups and no doubt a sincere effort will be made to implement that plan. But of course it will be difficult to succeed as Hamas will steal resources and, of course, benefit from the increased money and supplies, both directly and through increased popularity.

Hamad himself signaled this effort in his statement. “We don’t want to curb the resistance and are not preventing the acts of the resistance” but want to let Gaza residents have some “breathing room and enable the Strip’s reconstruction.”

– No doubt there will be more voices in the West that Hamas is now becoming “moderate” and engagement should begin. This will probably be ineffectual, though.

The press conference set off a great deal of talk about the possibility of an imminent deal to release Israeli prisoner Gilad Shalit in exchange for hundreds of captured Hamas gunman. I rather doubt that—though it could be true—but it is not the most significant aspect of this new development.

Of course, it is possible, given the way the Middle East, terrorism, and Hamas work, that a rocket could be fired into Israel and the whole thing fall apart. But otherwise the aid flow and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip may now commence. It will be argued that Hamas would not encourage this rebuilding only to go to war and wreck everything again. Those who say such things don’t know much about Hamas.

Source: Important step? Hamas declares new ceasefire. Also read the original report from ynet.

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Nidal Hasan: Why I murdered 13 American soldiers

Crethi Plethi — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:27:48 +0000

Since the attack at Fort Hood, the media and politicians in the USA are avoiding political incorrectness including Barack Obama in saying that this shooting wasn’t Islamic related or at least unclear what was the motive at this point. Yet every normal thinking human being knows that the overwhelming signs all point towards the same conclusion: it was an act of Islamic terrorism. Nidal Hasan was years before Fort Hood already on the road to massacre American soldiers. Read this article from Barry Rubin.

How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:

Hassan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States–to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

Nidal Malik Hasan

It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He’s still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hassan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hassan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die.

In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics.

Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.

Hassan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hassan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5]. Ironically, if an American journalist or professor said this he’d be accused of Islamophobia.

Now here’s Hassan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hassan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hassan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hassan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hassan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hassan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hassan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hassan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hassan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem.

Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hassan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.

It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.

Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.

The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hassan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.

So, in his thinking, how might Hassan have escaped from that stark choice? Hassan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]

Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].

The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.

A digression is appropriate here. Hassan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hassan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hassan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.

As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.

Hassan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].

His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:

“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”

And of course, these groups did so convince Hassan. [Slide 48]

religion of hate

Why? Hassan tells us:

“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]

And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:

“Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]

If that had existed for Hassan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hassan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.

The answer must be in a mix of psychological factors and the fact that he did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of the former in no way negates that of the latter.

The fact that Hassan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they’re wasting everyone’s time. They’re also going to be wasting quite a few lives.

You can also read this article about Nidal Hasan and Islamophobia.

________

Mazzeltov,

CrethiPlethi

You can read the original article here

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.