Not all Lebanese are big fans of Hezbollah.

Lebanese Hezbollah leader Nasrallah has gained a lot of popularity in some parts of the Arab world, but not apparently in some places more than in Lebanon itself. This Lebanese blogger says Hassan Nasrallah: ENOUGH!. From what I've seen of the Lebanese blogs he's not alone.








Iraqi blogger criticizes Arab media.

The Iraqi blogger at Iraq the Model has some harsh criticism for the Arab media, and accuses them of exploiting the deaths in Lebanon to suit their own purposes.


Very much to my surprise, I'm finding a lot of support for Israel among bloggers in the Arab countries, or at least an awful lot of criticism of Hezbollah as well. What's happened in Iraq has created an enormous fear of Muslim extremism throughout the Arab world, at all levels. What this blogger emphasizes, and is proud of, is that the Iraqis are learning to distinguish between resistance and extremism, not just there but throughout the Arab world. They're not buying the endless propaganda about how Israel is the source of all evil. Of course, he acknowledges that he's in the minority, but it's good to hear nevertheless.



Lebanese bloggers.

Found this blog of Lebanese Bloggers, which is very interesting. Especially this post, which is not what I expected. They are angry at Israel for sure, but just as furious with Hezbollah for bringing all of this destruction on them.


What's very interesting is that the blogs and the rest of the net are the only way Lebanese and Israelis can speak to each other. The Lebanese strictly enforce the Arab boycott against Israel, and forbid anyone from communicating with them. Except on the web I guess.






Mass arrests at Saudi gay party.

Guardian article. Saudi police raided an underground "gay" party, and arrested over a hundred men, although most were later released. Interesting in that it indicates not only a fairly substantial underground gay scene there, but an organized effort to suppress it.


Naturally if this happened in China or Russia or Cuba it would be front-page news, and a big stink would be raised. But because it's an American ally with lots of oil, human rights or the rule of law don't matter, and no one will pay any attention.

One of these days though there's going to be a "Stonewall" there, a day on which people will just decide that they've had enough and start to fight back.






US could help Iran join the WTO.

In the Iranians for Peace blog was this post entitled Help Iran Become More Involved in the World Economy. A suggestion that if the US wants to help Iran become more democratic and prosperous then why not help it join the WTO instead of blocking its application.


Pretty sophisticated thinking, and strong evidence that the Iranians are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs. And very clearly that they understand what democracy involves.



Iranian bloggers for peace.

Via Alternet's News Log I found that there are about 75,000 blogs in Iran. And a new group called Iranian Bloggers for Peace.








"Is Damascus blind?"

The Lebanese Daily Star has a passionate editorial on the need for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. It really gets across just how important this is to the Lebanese.


The Daily Star is an awesome news site. If you want more on things Syrian, Professor Joshua Landis speciallizes in the subject, and has been blogging recent developments at syriacomment.com.

Speaking of which, his entry in today's post comments on a report in the Times of London that Syria has rejected demands to leave Lebanon, claiming it won't do it until Israel gives up the Golan Heights. Which won't be happening soon.


Well, if they don't leave, even in the face of the kind of sentiment that the Daily Star describes, then they'll be facing the same resentment anyway. They certainly do tend to hold onto their grudges in the Middle East.

I hope that this red-blue thing in the US doesn't turn into that type of hatred, and continue on for generations and centuries. I think it might though. The right-wingers are so full of hatred, it's hard to imagine them ever coming to their senses.






World Order, Failed States and Terrorism.

The brilliant Henry C. K. Liu's latest series of essays is called World Order, Failed States and Terrorism, with the first two parts available over at the Asia Times. Long, detailed overviews of global developments from one of the most knowledgeable scholars around. My personal favorite actually. A complete list of his work is here.


It's disappointing that he continues to use the semantically meaningless term "terrorism", but I guess that he's just trying to speak in terms his readers understand. Or maybe just habit. If so, it's a habit it's time to break. I personally prefer the terms soldier, fighter, warrior, insurgent or whatever, depending on what it is they actually are or are doing. Using the t-word is just a way to avoid dealing with the complexities involved. But what do I know?

The Asia Times (atimes.com) just keeps getting better and better. Nice long, detailed articles and essays by people who really know what's going on, along with a growing community of people adding their two cents worth. And a truly global perspective, unlike the so-called western media. It's hard to hit that fine line between honest criticism of the US and self-indulgent America-bashing, but they (generally) do a pretty good job of it. But they're not afraid to publish stuff by opinionated individuals. I particularly like it's letters page and its new forum.






Brass Crescent Awards.

City of Brass, a Muslim blogging center, has announced the winners of the Brass Crescent Awards, which is for the best blogs in or on the Muslim community. Lots of interesting links there.


Not surprised that Riverbend won the best Iraqi blog for Baghdad Burning. Incredible, heartfelt writing. Wish she could blog more than she does, but I'm amazed that without electricity, phones, water or heat that the Iraqis are able to do it at all. At least she speaks the truth. Here's a quote from some of her posts on Fallujah.


And this is from a woman who just 18 months ago was rather friendly towards the Americans. Things have changed.






Iranian athlete forfeits rather than fight Israeli.

Article in the Guardian's Olympic section. The Iranian Olympic team may face sanctions over the this.


The phrase "oppressed Palestinian people" is a very strange thing to use at the Olympics. Yasir Arafat, the leader of these "oppressed" people, led a terrorist group (Black September, if I remember correctly), that murdered several Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. Which is far and away the worst violation of the Olympic ideals of peace ever.

I don't understand why people would come to the Olympics and not be prepared to compete. They must have known the Israelis would be there. Very strange and sad. This really illustrates the seriousness of the increasing strains between Iran and Israel. Over the weekend Iran announced that it has missiles capable of striking Israel.

I don't know if the Palestinians themselves are at the game. I guess they're not or it would have been in the news, or at least mentioned in the stories about the entry of the athletes at the opening.






Lebanese Daily Star amazingly objective.

It's widely accepted that the Euro-American media are more objective and more open to discussion and feedback than the Arab media. Most online newspapers these days ask for readers' input, and most have forums and other areas where people can comment on the articles and editorials.

Generally though after reading an article you have to go to another part of the site, usually the forums, in order to express your opinions. The one and only newspaper on the web, that I know of anyway, that actually includes an option for commenting immediately at the end of each and every story is the Lebanese Daily Star. A very simple thing, but for some reason virtually no one does this. And the last people I'd expect to do it would be an Arab paper. (Well, actually the last people I think most people would expect. I myself am not that surprised, since I've never accepted this prejudice that claims that the Arabs are uncivilized and democratic people who don't care what their people think.)

Like I say a simple thing, but rather remarkable. And encouraging. I'm also surprised at the objective and sophisticated tone of their reporting in general. Witness this article discussing the reasons for Turkey's rather sudden chill towards Israel. I would have expected an Arab paper to almost automatically blame it on Israel's actions, but they seem to suggest that it's due more to Turkish politics than to anything Israel's done. In fact they seem to be defending Israel's positions here, which I'm sure would surprise those who think that all Arabs and all Muslims (not the same thing, by the way) blame everything on the Israelis.


The language is quite circumspect and politic, and maybe I'm reading a bit too much between the lines, but it seems to me that one of the things that they are implying is that if Turkey wants to be accepted as part of the European Union then it only follows that they have to take an anti-Israeli, if not openly anti-Semitic, stance.

Which would at least support my long-held contention that the major source of opposition to Israeli policies, and indeed to its very existence, is not in the Muslim world, but in Christian Europe. I know that there are still many people who claim that European opposition to Israel is not anti-Semitic, but let's not fool ourselves. The British, French, Russians, and Poles, in particular, have been trying to wipe out the Jews for centuries. (The Germans too, of course, but they at least seem to have learned their lesson. And actually the only reason that all of the Jews were in Germany in the first place is that they had been driven out of most of the other countries in Europe.) No one can deny that it ws Christian persecution in Europe that drove the Jews out in the first place. (A movement that began during the 19th century, long before Hitler, popular mythology notwithstanding.) The fact is that the Jews and the Arabs have been living peacefully in the mideast for thousands of years. The only times they ever seem to have been in conflict is when European Christians show up and start stirring up trouble, using the policy of divide-and-conquer in order to take control. (Check out the history of the Crusades.) And throughout the glory years of the great early Islamic civilizations, some of the most tolerant societies which have ever existed, Jews were more than welcome and even achieved high ranks in the various courts.

But I was talking about the Daily Star, and shouldn't digress like that. All in all I'm amazed at the positions their editorials and articles take. They recommend that the Saudis allow women to vote, they question how much good Arafat is doing the Palestinians, and take other positions you wouldn't expect from an Arab paper. And perhaps those who claim that there are no democracies in the Arab world, are unaware that Lebanon is certainly one. In fact, isn't it curious that two of the most progressive states in the Middle East, Lebanon and Jordan, both happen to border on Israel?






Syria blog.

A good addition to the ranks of the "expert blogs" covering issues in the Middle East is the Syria Blog hosted by Joshua Landis, an Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

Syria doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves as a crucial part of the Middle East, but it's right in the middle of everything, and it's only a matter of time before the war now moving from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia moves there as well (if it hasn't already.)






Iranians sign up for Iraq attacks.

BBC News report.


This is not good news. This would suggest that the war in Iraq is spreading throughout the region. At least insofar as it can be considered a war against "coalition forces." Further on in the article they describe an attack against the British embassy in Tehran.


Well, they may have been repulsed. But that's a violent attack. 100 people comes close to being a "battle". But are they attacking the British embassy because the Americans don't have one there. I don't think they do. Relations may have improved a bit in recent years, as opposed to during the 80s the US set up Saddam in order to fight the Iranians, but not to the point of establishing formal relations. I'm not sure.






BBC reporter visits Kurdistan.

The BBC's Alastair Leithead begins a week-long diary of a trip to northern Iraq, the area dominated by the Kurds.


He goes on, and will continue for several days.






Syria rejects Israeli peace overture.

I note in the post below how William Safire claims that American policies are pushing various countries there toward peace and democracy. I quote his entry on Iraq, but he also mentions Syria.


Which is why this article in the Guardian, Syria rejects Israeli offer of talks, reporting that the Syrians have rejected requests from the Israelis for peace talks as "not serious" is so interesting.


So it would seem that they do not really want peace, they just want to try to convince the international community that they do. Most likely because they're terrified of the US invading them from neighboring Iraq. But they began the 1967 war, not the Israelis.

Basically they want to negotiate with the US, not with Israel. As always, looking for someone else to blame for the problem, and trying to avoid dealing with the real issues. And they basically just want the Israelis to give in and withdraw, without addressing the real serious issue of the Golan Heights, which directly overlook Israel, and from attacks can be easily made.

At least the Guardian notes that Syria and Israel are still technically at war, which they have been since 1948, something that is NEVER mentioned in the many articles on the conflicts. Given the degree and extent of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in Britain these days that's rather surprising. I've read dozens, maybe hundreds, of articles from the British press on the subject, and I think this is the first time I've seen this mentioned.

The Israelis are also still technically at war with Saudi Arabia, and also have been since 1948, something else which is never mentioned. And the claim that they do not want peace would seem to be contradicted by the fact that they have successfully negotiated peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, and haven't had any problems since. And by the fact that in order to defuse tensions with the Syrians they withdrew their troops from southern Lebanon, where they have long battled Syrian-supported forces. But they're still "not serious."

You often read that the Israeli-Palestinian "conflict" could "lead to war." But the fact is that there has been an active state of war there since 1948. The reason that the Palestinians and other Arabs constantly refer to the 1967 borders is an attempt to create the impression that it all began then. To try to hide the fact that it all really began when the Arabs declared war in 1948, and that the Israelis, being totally committed to peaceful coexistence, then and now, only took measures in 1967 to protect itself after three separate wars were launched against it over the previous twenty years.

The Arabs also constantly demand that the Israelis respect the various UN resolutions that have been passed against it. But they conveniently ignore that in 1948 they totally refused to respect the original UN resolution which originally partitioned the lands, and continue to do so. You can't have it both ways folks. The first step towards peace is for the Arab countries to drop their declarations of war against Israel, and to recognize the country. Israel can't recognize Palestine until the other countries recognize it. It doesn't make sense, legally or otherwise.






Stupid Israeli marriage law.

And certainly the Israelis aren't always right either. They just passed a law forbidding any Palestinian who marries an Israeli from living there. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It just plays into the hands of Israel's enemies. Guardian article on it. It will split families and turn the Israelis in those families against the government. Altho I do note that it has to be renewed annually. All laws should be like that.

And it belies the major difference, at least until now, between the Israelis and the Palestinians, namely that the Israelis were willing to share and live with others, while the Palestinians weren't. Israel always gave Arabs civil rights, if not fully equal to Jewish ones, but generally more than they had in their own countries. While the Palestinians have pretty much denied even the right of Jews to live, much less live with them, and have never been willing to share anything.

So stupid law. But inevitable I guess. Until the Palestinians remove Arafat from power the Israelis have to assume that they are enemies intent on the total destruction of Israel, just as Arafat has always demanded. They can hope for peace, but it will take more than words to make that happen. There have to be substantial movements by Palestinians against Arafat and what he represents. More than words. Abbas may want peace, but Arafat doesn't. And he remains in the top position.

Still it is a disturbing sign of the increasing power of the Orthodox right wing in Israel. The article also tells about the government's decision to expand a settlement in Gaza, despite the commitment to freeze the settlements in the road map.


Long quote, but I want to show that I realize that I don't think the Israeli government are exactly angels either. It should be remembered however that the "road map" was not created by the Israelis and/or the Palestinians, but by outside powers. Its goals are not necessarily those of the people who created the road map.

As I've said before, any lasting peace must come from within the two parties fighting, not from outside. No matter how well intentioned the outsiders are. (Which is not to imply that I think the US, British, Russian and UN quarter behind the road map are well intentioned. They're not. If they want peace in the Middle East it's only when and if it suits their own purposes.)






Afghani situation continues to deteriorate.

Also writing in the Guardian, Isabel Hilton reports that the warlords in Afghanistan continue to regain power, and that the country in general is in bad shape.


What a sad situation. Basically it's getting like it was before. Brutal warlords in charge, backed by American aid, either directly or indirectly.


I really hate to keep bashing Bush and company like this. I don't really admire those on the web who do nothing but that. But it makes me so mad. So much wasted energy, so much rhetoric and fancy talk, and so little focus, intelligence or real accomplishments. And I suppose it's just coincidental that an American company got the road contract.






Protests in Iran spread.

The Scotsman also reports that the protests in Iran are spreading from student neighborhoods into middle-class ones. And the government is starting to talk tougher, and using gangs of paramilitary toughs to attack them.


Keep in mind that Iranians, who used to be called Persians, are not Arabs. It's hard keeping track of all of the different groups involved here.






More public protests in Iran.

The third day of massive protests there. And the Economist wonders if America is pulling the strings? Overview of the current state of affairs there, and what American motives may or may not be. More and more it sounds as if the US is getting ready to invade. It certainly is working to destabilize the regime there. Hope I'm wrong.






Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan.

The NY Times reports that things in Afghanistan are not going well at all. Slowly but surely, regional warlords are regaining the upper hand.


Not much different from the Texans either, at least as far as I can see. I'd bet my bottom dollar drug money from Afghanistan is flowing into Republican coffers as we speak. After being carefully laundered in the stock market of course. Could that be the reason for the reason rise in the stock market? There certainly doesn't seem to be anything happening in the American economy that could explain the sudden rise. The US economy certainly hasn't grown 20 percent during the last two months.






Myth of 'One Afghanistan' shattered.

The LA Times reports that things in Afghanistan are not going well, and that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are beginning to reemerge.


What a mess. Boy, this is going to go on for years.






Thomas Friedman says Saudis have too much democracy.

Yes, that's right. In the latest of his NY Times editorials he analyzes the current status of Saudi Arabia, and especially that of the ruling house of Saud, and concludes that the problem is that they're not tyrannical enough. I've long since come to the conclusion that he's basically an absolutist, but I don't recall him stating it so bluntly.


Yea, that's really the answer. Go around "breaking heads." Prince Abdullah, the man behind the Bin Ladens, the main instigator and the primary support of Islamic fanaticism, the lifelong enemy of Israel, the steady supporter of state-supported terrorism, the man who doesn't object to people getting their hands cut off and women flogged for adultery, is "too nice."

"It's a country where one man makes no decisions." Gee, I thought that was one of the definitions of democracy. Does he also think that the US would be better off if just one man made all of the decisions? Apparently so.

So no, Mr. Friedman. The problem isn't that the Saudis are too busy consulting with others, but just the opposite. It's that they are incredibly selfish, corrupt and greedy, and care only about retaining their wealth and power. They couldn't care less about the terrorists. If they could stay in power by embracing terrorism, they wouldn't hesitate a minute. They might just demonstrate that too. And if he thinks there's even the most remote possibility that they could be the ones to lead the empowerment of women, he's really living in a fantasy world. Unbelievable.



US aiming for "regime change" in Iran.

The Guardian reports in this article that the US is already planning its next invasion, the target this time being Iran.


The US is claiming that Iran is sheltering Al Qaeda soldiers (time to stop calling them terrorists), stating that it is so with the same certainty with which it claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Even more frightening is the suggestion that the Pentagon is making alliances with groups it itself has proclaimed to be "terrorists."

And in an opinion piece they suggest that the threats against Iran are "a self fulfilling prophecy."








Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy.

Via Common Dreams, Arundhati Roy, noted Indian writer and activist, speaks in New York on empire and its discontents. This is a must read, about as eloquent an overview of the situation from the perspective of a "third world" woman as you can get. This is from her introduction.


It's a long speech. She doesn't seem to be very happy about being a citizen of the American empire. ;)






Al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah.

Many details on the connection between Al-Qaida (as the British spell it) and Jemaah Islamiyah, the group allegedly responsible for the nightclub bombing in Bali, in this Guardian article:


Not exactly sure how much of this I really believe. I certainly don't think it's anywhere as cut and dried as this article seems to make it, nor do I believe that al-Qaida is that well structured and organized. Important to remember that while it may be convenient to report this as a single organization, in reality there are many, many groups, representing many different peoples with divergent views and goals. They may be allied in some ways, at some times, in some places, but certainly not everywhere.

And to suggest that all of these, apparently millions of people if this is as widespread as is claimed, are "evil", and that all those they attack are "good" is absurd and simplistic.

With the active help of the so-called "Western" powers, the Indonesian government has been terrorizing its citizens for decades. There are few places with a poorer human rights record, or more government-sponsored terrorism than Indonesia. If it was a "communist" country like China it would be widely reported. But because it gives free reign to capitalism, it's simply ignored. Same old story.

---

End of entries.