FDD

Things Fall Apart (CM)

Bret Stephens writes:

Mankind is not comprised solely of profit- and pleasure-seekers; the quest for prestige and dominance and an instinct for nihilism are also inscribed in human nature, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Libertarianism makes no accounting for this. It assumes the relatively tame aspirations of modern American life are a baseline for human nature, not an achievement of civilization.

There is a not-incidental connection here between libertarianism and pacifism. George Orwell once observed that pacifism is a doctrine that can only be preached behind the protective cover of the Royal Navy. Similarly, libertarianism can only be seriously espoused under the protective cover of Leviathan.

That's something worth considering as Americans spend the coming year debating the course of things to come in the Middle East. It is beguiling, and parochially American, to believe that things go better when left alone. In truth, as Yeats once wrote, things fall apart.

More here.

Silent Majority? (CM)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes:

    It is often said that Islam has been “hijacked” by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates.

    But where are the moderates?

More here.

The law and terrorist charities (AV)

In this morning's National Review online, I have an article with Howard Anglin, Esq. on a recent judicial decision out of California authored by Judge Audrey Collins that seriously hampers the government's efforts to restrict terrorist financing. Read the article.

To be fair to Judge Collins, her opinion is nothing like the hatchet job performed by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on the NSA’s terrorist-surveillance program earlier this year. Judge Taylor’s opinion was roundly — and rightly — condemned as poorly reasoned and unworthy of the legal craft by lawyers from across the political spectrum. Judge Collins’s decision, by contrast, is neither overtly partisan nor irrational. With one exception it is a workmanlike application of precedent to fact. Unfortunately, that one exception has catastrophic potential.

...

There is, however, a compelling basis for a government ban on any assistance — even self-described humanitarian aid — to terrorists. Because terrorist organizations are not known as models of corporate transparency, there is no way of knowing whether a terrorist entity’s humanitarian arm is funneling money to its militant one. What is more, the fungible nature of money means that donations to the peaceful arm free up money to be spent by the militant arm.

A tribute to Jeane Kirkpatrick (AV)

I was awakened this morning by a call from a friend informing me that Jeane Kirkpatrick had died. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, until fairly recently, was a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where I interned last year, and her office was only a few steps away from my bay on the 11^th floor. She later went on to help found the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Jeane would make a point of stopping for a chat every time she passed my bay at AEI, and we had many fascinating conversations about foreign policy, and I was constantly struck by her powerful mind, on which, mercifully, age was not taking its toll.

Being a somewhat bumptious sort, I would try to tease out her views on the issues facing us today—at the time, it was the floundering Iraq mission—and it was clear that her contributions deserved a more public airing. Fortunately, prior to her death, Jeane had finished writing a new book on foreign policy. Though I have not yet had the pleasure to read it (it will be published shortly), I am told by those whose judgment I trust that it is excellent.

I remember one particular conversation with Jeane during which, and this was the Tory in me speaking, I quizzed her about her role in the Falklands crisis, which had received unfavorable reviews in Margaret Thatcher's memoirs Downing Street Years. Jeane displayed her characteristic graciousness, explaining the basis for her skepticism at being too supportive of Britain's pursuit of its territorial claim, while conceding that hindsight showed her fears were too severe.

Jeane explained that she was worried that an embarrassment of the Argentinean government over the Falklands might lead to its replacement by a communist one. Jeane's thinking flowed from the powerful, and powerfully American traditions of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as her own thesis in Dictatorships and Double Standards, which foreign policy thinkers today, especially those specializing in the Middle East, are I think admonished to read. (A link to the original essay is here, and its book form here).

In vivid detail, Jeane explained that hindsight had vindicated Lady Thatcher's decision, not her own. Yet, in this concession, Jeane's graciousness and honor came through, and I came to see that any sensible policymaker in her place would have had the same fears as her, and would probably have come to the same decision: I, with all my sympathies for the Anglosphere and the old order, certainly would have.

Jeane then spoke to me about the profound ambiguity of foreign policy idealism that animated her Dictatorships and Double Standards thesis, subtly calling attention to a particular weakness in my own foreign policy thinking. I would say that if there is one essay that those who are called neoconservatives should read, it is Dictatorships and Double Standards.

Ultimately, difficult policy decisions cannot be entirely based on ex ante normative ideals, but prudential concerns, animated by history. Fortunately, this underscores the need for powerfully smart, and idealistic, statesmen, of which Jeane Kirkpatrick surely was one. Withal, Jeane's contribution to U.S. foreign policy was very significant, and her death is serious and in many ways sad, but she leaves behind many friends, a goodly number of acolytes, and a very, very significant legacy. May she rest in peace.

Islam and the Sword (KA)

The latest comments made by the Pope Benedict XVI on Islam and its presumed violent past have opened the debate about the use of the “sword” in Islamic history. Before making judgment on how the Islamic Empire was established and how non-Muslims survived under Muslim rule one should take into account the following facts:

First, one should put things in context. In the 7th century A.D.- time in which the Muslim Empire was created- empires were created by the sword. Long before Islam, Alexander, the Romans, the Visigoth and others created their empires through the sword and not through referendum and democratic processes. Long after the establishment of Muslim empires, so called “civilized” nations also used the sword and the gun to create empires in their recent history. The use of the sword in establishing the Muslim Empire was not an exception in history, but a rule in human history that was only recently dismissed.    

Second, the Muslim religion did not only spread as a result of Muslim conquest. In fact, in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia Islam was spread by traders, and Egypt’s Coptic Christians favored and facilitated the entry of the Muslim forces who had better terms on freedom of worship and taxation than the Byzantine ruler who persecuted Egyptians and their native Church.

Last but not least, at the end of several centuries of Muslim rule, the vast majority of the inhabitants of places like the Balkans or the Indian sub-continent were non-Muslim. If Muslim rule was so brutal, how could one explain that after several centuries of Muslim rule the majority of the population was non-Muslim? Needless to add that in Muslim Spain all religions were tolerated in contrast with the Catholic “reconquista” and its Inquisition that brutally rid Spain of its Muslims and Jews- most of whom took refuge in Muslim countries while some had to convert to Catholicism to remain in Spain.

In sum, the statement that the Islamic Empire was spread by the sword might be true – at certain times and in certain places - but it is not the entire truth, and alone, it obfuscates the diversity and complexity of Islam over its fourteen centuries of history, and the thousands of miles of its reach. As does the implication that the use of violence in the name of religion is somehow unique to Islam.

At the same time, if Muslims are hurt by comments that Islam is intolerant, then they should also express it by speaking out against extremist Muslim clerics who spread lies about other religions, particularly Christianity and Judaism, or on occasional cases when extremists try to convert people by force. Each human being is entitled to dignity - and Muslims should extend to Christianity, Judaism and other religions the same respect that we yearn for them to give to Islam.

The fact that so many Muslim extremists today selectively read Islam’s history of conquest to justify the use of the sword, and radicalize disenfranchised Muslim youth, is not an excuse for non-Muslims to make sweeping generalizations of Islam. Non-Muslims should be careful of selective, simplistic readings of history or theology.

Iran Freedom Support Act close to passage? (AV)

The Iran Freedom Support Act is, according to the New York Sun, before the Senate today and has a very good chance of passage - it having been scuttled the last time it was considered by White House pressure.

I wrote a backgrounder on the contents of the bill here and an op/ed in The Hill explaining the positive effect the bill will have here.

Zakaria on Iran (AV)

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria offers a subtle, cogent case for why the United States should not fear a nuclear Iran. He makes two arguments: first, as the example of China shows, messianic states that acquire nuclear weapons do not always fulfill their genocidal rhetoric, and second, that Arab countries will continue to balance against a rising Iranian power.

Both of these are carefully made arguments. Unfortunately, neither are particularly reassuring, or persuasive.

I have never been too enamored with historical analogies, and Zakaria fails to make the case as to why Iran will become pacified like China, but his subtle point is a good one -- that countries that adopt the most alarmist interpretations of their enemies' conduct tend to implement bad foreign policy.

Zakaria's second argument is more underwhelming. He writes that, "Arab regimes will get more assertive in responding to the rise of Iranian power." What does he mean by "more assertive"? Egypt is musing about developing a nuclear capability of its own – is that what he means by "assertive"? Also, among Sunni states, Egypt is probably the least worried about the rise of a Shia power. How will other Middle East states react?

Also, since the United States wields more influence over most Arab states than it does over Iran, should it encourage the nuclearization of the region in response to an Iranian threat? And how would more militarily assertive Arab states affect the Arab-Israeli imbroglio? And might this ossify political reform in the Middle East, with Arab states and Iran using their possession of nuclear technology to deter U.S. support for democratic reforms?

Ultimately, those who seek to make more palatable the idea of a nuclear Iran need to reckon with the massive imbalances this will cause both to the Middle East, the United States' ability to be the dominant actor in the region, and the future of Middle East political reform.

Both of these are carefully made arguments. Unfortunately, neither are particularly reassuring, or persuasive.

I have never been too enamored with historical analogies, and Zakaria fails to make the case as to why Iran will become pacified like China, but his subtle point is a good one -- that countries that adopt the most alarmist interpretations of their enemies' conduct tend to implement bad foreign policy.

Zakaria's second argument is more underwhelming. He writes that, "Arab regimes will get more assertive in responding to the rise of Iranian power." What does he mean by "more assertive"? Egypt is musing about developing a nuclear capability of its own – is that what he means by "assertive"? Also, among Sunni states, Egypt is probably the least worried about the rise of a Shia power. How will other Middle East states react?

Also, since the United States wields more influence over most Arab states than it does over Iran, should it encourage the nuclearization of the region in response to an Iranian threat? And how would more militarily assertive Arab states affect the Arab-Israeli imbroglio? And might this ossify political reform in the Middle East, with Arab states and Iran using their possession of nuclear technology to deter U.S. support for democratic reforms?

Ultimately, those who seek to make more palatable the idea of a nuclear Iran need to reckon with the massive imbalances this will cause both to the Middle East, the United States' ability to be the dominant actor in the region, and the future of Middle East political reform.

Iranian official lies about Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (AV)

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security, recently said:

Article 11 of the NPT states that if we are threatened, we can act in secret. If you want our activity to be transparent, you should not use the Security Council as leverage for your own benefit. If you do so, then according to the NPT, we are required to act in secret, in the face of your threat.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, what Article 11 of the NPT actually says is, "This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States."

Oops...

Is the Bush Doctrine Dead? (CM)

Not according to Norman Podhoretz, it isn't.

He writes:

So far as the implementation of this new strategy goes, it is still early days--roughly comparable to 1952 in the history of the Truman Doctrine. As with the Truman Doctrine then, the Bush Doctrine has thus far acted only in the first few scenes of the first act of a five-act play. Like the Truman Doctrine, too, its performance has received very bad reviews. Yet we now know that the Truman Doctrine, despite being attacked by its Republican opponents as the "College of Cowardly Containment," was adopted by them when they took power behind Dwight D. Eisenhower. We also know now that, after many ups and downs and following a period of retreat in the 1970s, the policy of containment was updated and reinvigorated in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan (albeit without admitting that this was what he was doing). And we now know as well that it was by thus building on the sound foundation laid by the Truman Doctrine that Reagan delivered on its original promise.

It is my contention that the Bush Doctrine is no more dead today than the Truman Doctrine was cowardly in its own early career. Bolstered by that analogy, I feel safe in predicting that, like the Truman Doctrine in 1952, the Bush Doctrine will prove irreversible by the time its author leaves the White House in 2008. And encouraged by the precedent of Ronald Reagan, I feel almost as confident in predicting that, three or four decades into the future, and after the inevitable missteps and reversals, there will come a president who, like Reagan in relation to Truman in World War III, will bring World War IV to a victorious end by building on the noble doctrine that George W. Bush promulgated when that war first began.

His Commentary essay is here.

For more notes & comments see this week's e-newsletter.

On the precipice of Ragnarök? (AV)

Ross Douthat has a characteristically sharp piece in The Wall Street Journal arguing that the dividing line in foreign policy isn't between left and right, hawk and dove, idealist and realist. Nor, for that matter, is it between neoconservatives, democratic globalists, progressive realists, democratic realists, or anything else so neoteric.

Instead, Ross argues that we are divided by history. Some believe that it is 1919, that Bush is Woodrow Wilson, and that we are tying ourselves to a world we don't understand; other believe it's 1938, our enemy is Hitler-esque, and we have to choose between being Churchill or being Chamberlain; still others think it's 1972, that America is exaggerating the threat it faces, and that we are the source of our own problems; still others believe it's 1942 and that, although we didn't want this fight, we are duty-bound to end it. And so on...

It's an interesting thought experiment. Still, the flaws in Ross' methodology are obvious. History doesn't repeat itself, it only appears to to those unfamiliar with its details. Also, why should we confine ourselves to history from the past century? Why not reach further back into our collective experience - say, to the 30 Years' War, which in many ways is a more relevant historical analogy? Indeed, for more reasons that can be explained in a blog post, Ross' analogies obscure more than they clarify.

Ross directs considerable anger at the so-called 1938ers. Several weeks ago, the 1938 glitterati - everyone from Newt Gingrich to Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly - said we were fighting World War 3. Not to be outdone, Michael Ledeen and Norman Podhoretz claim we are in the middle of World War 4.

Ross may recoil at this, as will others who think the Bush administration is reenacting Wagner's Götterdämmerung. The sad reality, however, is that all we're doing is taking our enemies at their word.

Did Israel violate the ceasefire? (AV)

Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for violating the ceasefire after it launched a raid against an arms shipment to the Bekka Valley. But Annan's position is not - nor can it be - supported by the actual ceasefire resolution, UNSCR 1701 (2006).

Structurally, UNSCR 1701 does two things: first, it forces an immediate and temporary ceasefire based upon the cessation of actual hostilities; second, it calls for an international presence in southern Lebanon to help Lebanon maintain the ceasefire. Right now, we are somewhere between Stage 1 and Stage 2. So a resort to force is justified if it derives sanction from the actual text of UNSCR 1701 or a right enshrined in the UN Charter or in international law generally. With this as the standard, there is a case to be made that Israel's commando raid against an arms shipment in the Bekaa Valley is lawful.

Israel is pointing out (correctly) that the resolution bans offensive military operations; this is a truism since a Security Council resolution cannot ban defensive operations. Israel is claiming its actions are justified by the right of self-defense, which is given partial expression in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The key requirement here is that Israel's response be necessary and proportional.

It is certainly proportional, since a commando raid that results in little collateral damage is proportional to the threat posed by an arms shipment to Hezbollah, and the proximate relationship between that shipment and an attack on Israel's territorial integrity. But was it necessary? This is a more difficult question, but there is a strong case to be made that the answer is yes.

Operative Clause 8 of UNSCR 1701 calls upon Israel and Lebanon " to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles." It then goes on to define these principles, the support of which is necessary, by the resolution's own language, for a permanent ceasefire: subclauses 2,3 and 5 list those that I think are most relevant: removing armed personnel, assets and weapons unless those authorized by the government of Lebanon from south of the Litani; the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon; no sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.

Before we reach Stage 2 of the ceasefire, the only parties capable of enforcing the terms of UNSCR 1701 are the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and nothing in the resolution precludes Israel from enforcing its terms, especially if this strengthens Israel's right of self defense. We should note that if the UN Security Council wanted Israel to remain uninvolved in the enforcement of the technical terms of the resolution, it could have done so. For example, when the Security Council authorized a coalition to use force against Iraq to remove it from Kuwait, the resolution was worded such that Israel could not be part of that coalition. Here, in the absence of such wording, Israel is fully justified in enforcing the resolution.

I eagerly await a press release from Kofi Annan criticizing the country that sent that shipment, which assuredly is in violation of UNSCR 1701. It is up to Israel and her allies to rebut the perfidious Kofi Annan when he tries to pin the blame for the collapse of his UN mission on Israel.

Reform Still Best Hope for Middle East

In today's World Politics Watch, FDD Senior Fellow Khairi Abaza argues that political reform remains the best long-term hope for reducing the supply of terrorist recruits and creating peace in the Middle East:

Despite virtual around-the-clock coverage of the war between Israel and Hezbollah, one important aspect remains poorly understood: the reaction of the 300 million strong "Arab Street." Turn on any Arab television channel, though, and you can't miss the rage and widespread support for Hezbollah and Hamas: streets roiling with protestors, callers to talk programs denouncing Israel and the United States, and clerics defending Hezbollah and calling for holy war.

Five years after 9/11, the West still struggles to understand this rage that pushes Arab masses to view radical groups as heroic forces of resistance. On one extreme, there are those who indict Islam or Arab culture as the culprit. On the other, there are those who blame it on Israeli aggression and U.S. bias towards Israel. Both are equally simplistic explanations of the contemporary Arab mindset, which is due in large part to the way Arab governments have deliberately nurtured this anger towards Israel, and increasingly the United States, for more than five decades.

The rest is here.

World Politics Watch is a new online daily focused on foreign policy and national security.  It features original commentary and reporting and a helpful roundup of international news from top sources.  Well worth bookmarking.

Ceasefire proposal - the devil's in the detail (AV)

Dore Gold, Israel's former Ambassador to the United Nations, makes a terrifyingly good point about the proposed ceasefire to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that has been embraced by France and the United States. As the New York Sun's Eli Lake reports,

"[T]he draft U.N. resolution sponsored by France and America calls on the establishment of a multinational force under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with grave threats to international peace and security.

As such, the second resolution authorizing the peacekeepers could lead to sanctions or military strikes against Israel should Jerusalem take pre-emptive military action against a Hezbollah militia that the Israel Defense Force is unlikely to be able to disarm by the time the armistice kicks in."

The draft resolution calls for the "immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." What will happen if the proposed ceasefire fails, the international force sent in is a paper tiger, and Hezbollah begins launching attacks against Israel?

Israel can - again - launch an attack against Hezbollah based on principles of self-defence, but Israel's antagonists will be able to say that Israel is explicitly violating the terms of a UN Security Council resolution. Nothing new there...

What will however be different is that, this time, the resolution will have been passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which means, in practice, an escalation of the charges against Israel.

Furthermore, since Kofi Annan will be charged with implementing the resolution, and will have an important say in determining whether it is being followed, this proposed resolution may turn out to be yet another cudgel the world uses to bash Israel. A cudgel, I might add, that offers no guarantee of increasing Israel's security.

 

Is international law standing in the way of a ceasefire? (AV)

Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a controversial op/ed in the New York Sun explaining why the latest proposals for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah violate international law. He writes:

The most surprising aspect of international proposals for a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict is their endorsement of Hezbollah's demand that Israel give it territory, known as the Sheba Farms, in exchange for a end to rocket attacks on Israeli cities...What is certain — and yet entirely neglected in the discussion of the issue — is that the proposal violates bedrock norms of international law. Nations cannot enlarge their borders through the use of aggressive force. There are no exceptions to this non-acquisition principle.

Let's leave to one side the wisdom of ceding territory to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah and deal instead with Kontorovich's seductive claim that it violates international law.

It is certainly true that the UN Charter permits no exceptions to the non-acquisitive principle (this is the practical effect of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the Charter). Still, Kontorovich is overstating his case with regard to international law generally - unless, that is, he is laboring under the mistaken view that international law is whatever the United Nations and Kofi Annan say it is. It isn't, mercifully.

The truth is, although there is a general presumption against the acquisition of territory as a result of aggression, this is a neoteric doctrine - emerging as it did in the 20th century. In the past, conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. Of course, during the 20th century we have understandably moved away from this extreme position, but there is no absolute rule of non-acquisition when aggression is involved.

For example, the rule of uti possidetis - the principle that territory vests to the victorious party - has essentially kept the fragile peace in many African conflicts after initial disputes over post-colonial border. The International Court of Justice recognized something approaching this in its deliberations on the land and maritime border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon. Recently, this led to a truce and subsequently an agreement between these two countries. International law is better discerned from the way states act and their reasons for so acting rather than universalist-abstractions in the UN Charter.

In many ways, Kontorovich reveals the poverty of international law as a dispute resolution mechanism. Its boundaries are unclear, far too many people make authoritative statements when nuanced ones would be more appropriate, and by focusing too much on ex ante rules, it does not concern itself with creating lasting peace.

So, to answer the question posed in the title - International law isn't standing in the way of a ceasefire, the UN Charter is.

Youssef Ibrahim on Lebanon (CM)

We should view the events now unfolding not as a local battle for Lebanon but as a larger fight for the future of the entire Arab nation. For two decades, this nation of 350 million has been hijacked by a bizarre collection of Neanderthals, pseudo-revolutionaries, illiterate imams, and "Mad Max"-style Palestinian Arab terrorists of every hue, all united only in their desire to pillage in the name of a religion they expropriated.

Their manifest failure, which we hope will be delivered in resounding military terms, should come as a hard knock on the head of any Arab drifters. Cynics and cowards are already shouting "Enough!" but we know it will only be enough when the madman of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and all the other turbaned, bearded bats of the night are found, nailed down, and killed, and the whole Hezbollah movement in Lebanon — as well as Hamas and the other freelance Palestinian Arab factions — is convincingly discredited.

More here.

More notes & comments are in this week's e-newsletter.

Silent Majority? (CM)

Youssef Ibrahim (once my colleague at The New York Times) writing in the New York Sun:

Yes, world, there is a silent Arab majority that believes that seventh-century Islam is not fit for 21st-century challenges. That women do not have to look like walking black tents. That men do not have to wear beards and robes, act like lunatics, and run around blowing themselves up in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise. And that secular laws, not Islamic Sharia, should rule our day-to-day lives. We, the silent Arab majority, do not believe that writers should be killed or banned for expressing their views. Or that the rest of our creative elite - from moviemakers to playwrights, actors, painters, sculptors, and fashion models - should be vetted by Neanderthal Muslim imams who have never read a book in their dim, miserable lives.
   
The leader of Hizballah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received a resounding "no" to pulling 350 million Arabs into a war with Israel at the Arab League's meeting of 22 foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday, and from pundits and ordinary people across the Arab world. All in all, it seems that when Israel decided to go to war against the priestly mafia of Hamas and Hizballah, it opened a whole new chapter in the Greater Middle East discourse. And Israel is finding, to its surprise, that a vast, not-so-silent majority of Arabs agrees that enough is enough.

More here.

Is Israel's response disproportionate? [AV]

The French government condemned Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldiers as "a disproportionate act of war."

Disproportionate relative to what?

The French, in calling Israel's response disproportionate, are almost certainly measuring it against the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Bad as kidnapping Israeli soldiers is, the French reason, Israel's response is far more severe and, hence, disproportionate.

Except, this is the wrong standard. When speaking of proportionality, we shouldn't measure Israel's response against the initial wrong; instead, we should measure it against what it will take to stop that harm.

It is self-evidently true that if Israel were to kidnap three Hezbollah members - a par excellence proportionate response by French standards - this won't in any way reduce the threat it faces from Hezbollah.

This is why Israel is trying to disable the entire Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon, because only this, Israel calculates, will end the threat. This is also why Israel's response is proportionate - measured not just against the threat it faces but against what it will take to end that threat.

Middle East Media Round Up

CNN continues to update the situation in the Middle East here.  Reuters offers its own take on the situation here.

Charles Krauthammer tackles the question "Why They Fight" in today's Washington Post:

In 1948 Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the "genocidal Islamism" (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist.

Also in the Post, Michael Oren explains why Israel's only option in the current crisis is to confront state sponsors of terror:

By eliminating the terrorist leaderships in Gaza and southern Lebanon and deterring Syria and Iran from prodding their proxies to war, Israel can restore a reasonable level of security to its citizens.

The Bull Moose comments on the crisis here.

Littlegreenfootballs comments on the Vatican's condemnation of Israel here.

Michael Rubin argues that the U.S.' fight for spread of democracy is the Mideast is faltering in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The Gulag of Saud

J. Peter Pham and Michael I. Krauss explore the relationship between the U.S. and the House of Saud, and Saudi Arabia's abysmal record on human rights in today's FrontPageMagazine.com:

This ally and friend [Saudi Arabia] has become the breeding ground for so many enemies of America (including, of course, the majority of the 9/11 mass murderers). Why are we throwing Texas barbeques for these people?

Is Iraq the new Philippines? [AV]

History hardly ever repeats itself, it only appears like it does to those unfamiliar with its particulars. Which is why Ross Douthat's comparison of the Iraq war to the occupation of the Philippines is incorrect. Ross writes, at the American Scene:

[S]o far the military conflict that the Iraq War most resembles isn't Vietnam or World War II, but the TR-boosted Spanish-American War - a quick and painless military victory over a second-rate power, driven by a mix of idealism, jingoism, and power politics, that segued into a long and grueling counter-insurgency campaign [in the Philippines].

What gave the Filipino insurgency its popular appeal is notably absent from the Iraqi insurgency. The Filipino insurgents had a degree of popular support based on its claim that Filipinos should govern the Philippines.

The Filipino insurgents had Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipinio native, to lead them. Which Iraqi is a leader in the jihadist insurgency? The Iraqi insurgents were led by, before he was killed, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. And now they are led by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. The most hardcore and violent members of the insurgency are foreign jihadists, with no legitimate claim to pan-Iraqi nationalism.

Meanwhile, the United States armed forces are in Iraq today with the consent of the democratically elected government. Furthermore, the goal of the jihadists isn't a return to Iraqi rule, but a continuation of sectarian violence and terror that would extend beyond any U.S. troop withdrawal.

The differences, in this case, are more important than the superficial similarities in Ross' historical analogy. The Iraq war is many things--a replay of the occupation of the Philippines it most assuredly is not.

Wither, whither, the Bush Doctrine in Egypt? [AV]

How has the march toward democracy been faring in Egypt?

Writing in the Baltimore Sun, Jeffrey Azarva offers a cold, sobering update.

But just nine months after Mr. Mubarak won his fourth term, he ended the Egyptian government's experiment with democracy. When he arrested [opposition politician Ayman] Nour, the U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Francis J. Ricciardone, declined to comment. Mr. Mubarak saw a green light to accelerate his crackdown.

You can follow day-to-day updates in Egypt at the Egypt Monitor.

One of the better dailies in Egypt is the Arabic-language Al Masry Al Youm, published by Hesham Kasem, whose other hat is president of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.

Joshua Muravchik has recently written about the plight of Ayman Nour in the Wall Street Journal.

Hamas mourns death of Zarqawi [AV]

Underscoring the nexus of hate that unites terrorists worldwide, within hours of the announcement of Zarqawi's death, Hamas issued a statement to Reuters "commend[ing] brother-fighter Abu Musab...who was martyred at the hands of the savage crusade campaign which targets the Arab homeland, starting in Iraq."

Update (06/09): Hamas has denied issuing the statement linked to above but in their denial they praised Zarqawi as a "symbol[] in the face of American occupation."

The Syria Monitor

This week's Syria Monitor is now available. In it, Tony Badran, a Research Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, provides an update on the latest news affecting Syria's opposition and dissident movements.

This week's Syria Monitor includes reports on rallies being organized in Paris, London and Beirut to demand the release of Syrian prisoners of conscience; more information on next week's National Salvation Front Conference, which will take place in London; an update on the deteriorating health condition of Anwar al-Bunni, who has been on a hunger strike since being arrested two weeks ago; as well as news on the continuing harassment of signatories of the Beirut-Damascus Declaration.

You can sign up here to receive the Syria Monitor, which is sent out every Tuesday. You can track daily developments in Syria at the Syria Monitor blog. Previous Syria Monitors can be viewed here.

Direct talks, what's the point?

Yesterday's front page story in the Washington Post reporting that U.S. officials have been rejecting Iranian overtures for direct talks with the regime has been followed by reports today that IAEA head Muhammad el-Baradei also supports direct talks.

The United States response has been that direct talks can only happen when Iran has verifiably suspended its uranium enrichment activities. As long as Iran refuses to do this, direct talks with the regime will only give it more time to develop nuclear technology.

It was Rudyard Kipling in his poem Dane-Geld who offered what I believe is the best case against concessions of the sort Iran is asking,

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

Another Step Forward for Democracy in the Middle East

Today marks another step forward towards the goal of a democratic Middle East as Kuwaiti women are allowed to vote for first time.  The full story is here.

FDD Welcomes New Fellows Specializing in Egypt and Lebanon/Syria

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has added two new fellows in support of its growing Democracy Programs: Khairi Abaza, an Egyptian specialist and former Wafd Party official, and Tony Badran, a writer and researcher focused on reform movements in Lebanon and Syria.

“Khairi and Tony are experts in their regions, have great insight into the opportunity for reform in the Middle East, and understand the challenges that must be overcome for liberal democracy to advance,” said FDD Senior Vice President Eleana Gordon.  “They will play key roles in FDD's growing efforts to support democratic movements and reformers throughout the greater Middle East.”

Read more about Tony & Khairi here.

Islam and Constitutions: Why We Should Care (ACM)

Last summer, several of us at FDD, including Eleana Gordon and yours truly, expressed concern over the prominent role for Islamic law that was being woven into the new Iraqi constitution.  There had been similar developments -- in a process similarly shepherded by the U.S. State Department --when the new Afghan constitution was written.

Today comes a reminder of why this remains an issue to watch.

This is from Fox News, via the Associated Press:

Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity

KABUL, Afghanistan

— An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws.

Rahman, who is believed to be 41, was charged with rejecting Islam when his trial started last week, the judge said.

During the hearing, the defendant allegedly confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago when he was 25 and working as a medical aid worker for Afghan refugees in neighboring Pakistan, Mawlavezada said.

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which states that any Muslim who rejects their religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said the case was the first of its kind in Afghanistan.

He said that he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman changed his religion back to Islam, but the defendant refused.

Mawlavezada said he would rule on the case within two months.

Afghanistan is a deeply conservative society and 99 percent of its 28 million people are Muslim. The rest are mainly Hindus.

Martyrs, Ports & Poetry (AM)

Like almost everyone it seems these days, His Highness Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum has his own website.  On it, one learns that His Highness is the UAE’s Vice President, its Prime Minister, and, as of two months ago, the Ruler of of Dubai -- the Emirate at the center of the current ports-deal controversy.

His Highness is also a great admirer of “Nabati poetry,” which his site explains “is also known as ‘the people’s poetry’ and ‘Bedouin poetry’. It is considered the richest form of popular literature, and seen to reflect the reality of everyday life.” 

And what is this "reality of everyday life"?  Site visitors are treated to a sampling. His Highness, for example, recommends to readers “Stand With Justice,” said to be “narrated by the youth of Palestine”:

Pervaded the darkness and pervaded our aggressor/ In the camp, faces of death without mercy / Death in our land, my brother, is routine /Like honey, though others taste it as colocynth / Worse than death to mortgage my country / To pawn Al Aqsa and Al Quds, to surrender / Worse than death to bequeath my children / Shame and disgrace that history would proclaim / Yes, I resist with my body, I forge my glories / Glory knows not the lover of dirhams / Glory knows naught but a free calling / For martyrdom, with faith enduring / Whoever seeks victory asleep on pillows / Tell him be sure to dream whilst sleeping / Victory through sacrifice, though flow valleys / If blood flows – no victory without blood …

And there is also “Myself, For Al Aqsa, I Sacrifice”: 

Scorned the faces of the enemy / Whose blood is cold / Myself, for Al Aqsa, I sacrifice / Where the Prophet prostrated / And I raise with my voice the call / Oh, our people steadfast / No matter how long it takes / Al Aqsa to us is returning / A billion Muslims / Their conscience asleep / A billion Muslims, futile / Their influence waning / A billion counted / We need but one / The martyr fell, and seems / Lawless is the hateful / The child for help cries / And death for him lies waiting / And the world watches / Of their aggression a witness / The blood of childhood sang / The melody of glory everlasting / The sound of stones echoes / With promises of victory / With the aggressor began / And the criminal, the infidel / A word of honour / How often said by Zayed* / ‘Never relinquish the mosque / And for our right we fight’ / The midnight journey of the Prophet of guidance / And his ascension to the heavens / Aggression, though strutting / Its end is certain / Triumphs whoever stands firm / And for his right fights.

The footnote after “Zayed” in the poem explains that this is a reference to His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, President of the UAE.

McCarthy v. Ijaz

Andy McCarthy and Mansoor Ijaz debate, "Can Islam Reform Itself" in this Opinion Duel.

Purple Fingers of Freedom

Cliff May's latest Scripps-Howard column discusses the Purple Finger for Freedom campaign and the importance of showing solidarity with free Iraqis as they go to the polls next week.

Also new: Andy McCarthy discusses the 9/11 Commission and Able Danger in his latest NRO piece.

Political Evoluntion in Iraq (JS)

The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer has an interesting piece highlighting the political evolution taking place in Iraq.  While there are still clearly problems, this article makes plain that the political trends in Iraq are going in a positive direction (even if the political trends related to Iraq in the U.S. might not always seem to be...)

The Middle East Democracy Digest is Available

"We are so unused to seeing officials held accountable that the sight of Saddam answering charges may prove cathartic for people across the entire Arab world, not just Iraq.” Mona Eltahawy

Read the full publication.
Read past issues.

JON SNOW: The Trial of Saddam Hussein

The first of what is likely to be a series of trials of Saddam Hussein is scheduled to begin tomorrow.  For a quick overview of the specifics, check out the latest FDD backgrounder.

What can be expected on the first day of the trial?  A formal reading of the charges and a statement by the defense.  The defense is expected to try to use the media as a propaganda tool and has stated that they intend to shift the focus of the trial from the charges against Saddam to a trial of American actions in Iraq.  The defense can also be expected to seek an adjournment within the first day or two of the trial, which the judges may grant, while they review defense motions for a delay of trial.

We'll be following the case closely, and posting news and analysis here.  Stay tuned...

CLIFF MAY: Sign of Progress?

In some key Muslim countries, support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," while growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims surveyed now say democracy can work in their countries and is not just a political system for the West.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters which has more here. 

CLIFF MAY: Anti-History

Juan Cole, the President of the Middle East Studies Association, continues to  blame Israel for all sorts of strange things, making up the evidence as he goes along, all in an apparent attempt to persuade readers to share his antipathy for the Jewish state. But Martin Kramer slices and dices him -- it's here and it's well worth reading.

He Didn't Even Mention Having to Leave the Toilet Seat Down

Liberal Saudi Cleric Sheik Abd Al-Muhsen Al-Abikan on democracy and women in the West:

In the West, they say, "there must be equality between men and women? Equality in what way? For example, they talk about equality in how they are treated, but, in fact, they have no equality. The woman is more advanced than the man. The husband opens the car door for his wife, and lets her speak before him. Is this equality? No, it's the opposite. This is promoting the woman before the man. Western men should object to this."

Translation by MEMRI, hat tip to Kathryn Lopez.