Now he tells me that in a village in Kurdish Syria, a group of elders had visited the secret police, asking them to take down a statue of Bashar Assad, for as they had said: ”The youngsters are so angry we can’t control them, it’s better you do it.”

The blood baths this passed weekend at funerals in Syria, with security forces killing around 17 civilians, again puts the finger on the double standards of the West’s involvement the Arab Spring and it’s revolutions. The Syrian diaspora is watching in disbelief how Nato has intervened militarily on behalf of a disorganized and Al-Qaeda linked Libyan opposition to overthrow a dictator who has spent the last 10 years aligning himself with Western interests, while staying ominously silent when Bashar Assad, a Terror Sponsor par excellence and an aggressive enemy of the West, is committing the same kind of atrocities that got Muammar Gaddafi into war with Nato.

A lot have been said about this seeming contradiction, most eloquently by Caroline B. Glick in Jerusalem Post. In short, The West has no sound reason to intervene in Libya, seeing as the risk that a new government taking over after Khadaffi will be worse, for the West as well as for the Libyans, is paramount. In Syria on the other hand, it can’t get worse. Basher Assad’s regime is already a puppet for Iranian influence in the Arab world, a gun runner for Hizballah and Hamas, and the prime destabilizer of Lebanon. So intervening there should make sense, right? And another plus is the fact that Syria has a sizable Kurdish population, who are traditionally Pro-West. So how should we understand the US and Nato involvement in Libya and it’s utter reluctance to help the Syrian revolution along?

”The silence in the West concerning the Syrian blood bath has finally made me understand that the Western Lefties and Liberals don’t care at all about the Arab people”, my friend says, ”they only care about the fight against Israel”. His statement contains a partial answer to the conundrum, or as another Kurdish friend framed the same conclusion: “God, I wish Israel would occupy Kurdistan.” Bingo.

The Left couldn’t care less about Arabs. Not even about Palestinians. Jordanians and Syrians and Kuwaitis have killed many more Palestinians than Israel ever did. There are around 350 000 000 Arabs in the world, but all the worlds Humanitarians, Liberals and Lefties only care about the 4 million in the West Bank and Gaza, and for those fighting Israel. As for Libya, it obviously no longer is a force in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syria on the other hand is a weapon pointed at the heart of Israel, something that clearly helps moderating Left and Liberal demands for an intervention there.

But there is another point I’ve strangely enough haven’t seen in this discussion in mainstream media outlets, which is the answer to the obvious question: ”How much oil does Syria have”? The answer: Not a lot. Libya on the other hand has the 17th largest oil reserve in the world, twice as big as that of the US. And foreign interests in Libyan oil are huge.

So it would seem that the Arabs the West care about, militarily, politically and intellectually, are those who are either fighting Israel, live in the territories, or have a lot of oil. But I hope I’m wrong, because this conclusion doesn’t spell a great future for the Arab spring.

Writing or speaking of Israel and it’s conflict with it’s Arab neighbors, about the “occupation” or occupation, the Palestinians or “palestinians”, the territories or Judea and Samaria, and lately a more and more towards Israel hostile Western world – in short what in Israel is referred to as “Ha Matzav” (The Situation) – is to a large extent like walking on quick-sand wearing ice skates over the slippery slopes of the abyss of your choice. There are many reasons for this. First of all the topography of these processes is horribly complicated. Second, not one single piece of reality is considered an established fact by any of the parties involved, and every fact presented by one side will immediately be decried as a preposterous propagandistic lie by the other side, which brings us to the third problem: Irrespective of what droves of Anti-Israel thinkers, and unfortunately the current US administration, believes, this is not rational USA or UK, this is the Wild, Wild Middle East, where politicians, religious authorities and military spokespersons, down to the depressed Arab who rents an equally depressed camel for photos with visitors to the Olive Mount, will lie without blinking. About everything. To themselves and to others.

And when it comes to Europe’s and the US’ lacking understanding of the Israeli position, another problem is deeply worrying – Israel’s failure to explain to the world that the conflict is – at the very least – threefold:

1) First, we have the conflict between two peoples wishing to realize their nationalistic aspirations in the same, minuscular plot of overcrowded land. This is the European and US understanding of the problem, the understanding of Israel’s far left, and the one who has given rise to the idea of the Two State Solution. The PLO has of late, at least in English, given lip service to this understanding as well. As have different Israeli leaders.

2) The conflict is also the Arab world’s conflict with what they consider an insult to their honor – a Jewish state. One of the many ethnic minorities that for a thousands of years had been living in the Arab world at the mercy of Arab whims, have had the gaul to break free and create a state right under their noses, a state that in only 60 years has become more successful than any modern Arab state.

3) The religious and cultural conflict where in the eyes of Islamic interpretation, a geographic part of the Islamic Dar-Al-Islam (House of Islam) has been converted into Dar-Al-Harb (House of War).

While European and US critics of Israel only recognize the existence of the first of these conflicts, where Israel to some extent can be considered the stronger party, Israelis – for reasons of self-preservation – tend to be more worried about the latter two. The Arab and Palestinian leaders are more difficult to understand. In English, they show most interest in the first conflict, but in Arabic as well as in action, they focus more on the latter two as well. This is the reason why Arafat told Clinton and Barack to “Go to hell!!” after Camp David II, and the reason why the Palestinian negotiators has turned down every offer since. It is also the reason why Abu Mazen runs to the Arab League to get every little detail in the negotiations approved – he sees himself primarily as negotiating for The Arab Nation, not for his Palestinian people.

There is a lovely American expression about something being “The elephant in the room”, meaning the glaringly obvious thing that no one talks about. As for the current negotiations, or rather non-negotiations, there is a whole herd of elephants being tacitly ignored by left, right, Obama, Arabs and Israelis. I’m not certain that a negotiated peace will be forever impossible, but the already mentioned, as well as below elephants, make me absolutely certain the the current US sponsored pressure to resume negotiations is an absolute waste of time.

1) Nobody except Obama wants them. Benjamin Netanyahu is not Arik Sharon or Yitzchak Rabin. He does not have the inner strength to change his mind on the nature of the conflict, nor does he have the political strength to take on the rightist opposition in his own party, an even less to out-manouver Lieberman’s ever more outrageous positioning to become the rights crown prince in the next elections. As for Abu Mazen, he ignored the build freeze in the territories for 9 whole months, in order to not have to go down in history as the Palestinian leader who compromised with the holy Right of Return and with Jerusalem. He then got on the bandwagon with one month left, knowing full well that the build freeze would not be renewed. He is currently doing everything he can to force the US into a version of a renewed build stop that Netanyahu will not be able to accept. Abu Mazen is working on his legacy, fully aware that he has almost no public support, and couldn’t sell a peace deal to his people even if his life depended on it. This is why he consistently is doing everything he can to persuade the Israeli public of his lacking intentions, the latest prank was to send out one of his mouth piece ministers to claim that the Western Wall is a Muslim, and not a Jewish, shrine.

2) Elephant numero due – Gaza and Hamas. It is a truly fascinating fact that whether you choose to listen to the liberal Thomas Friedman in the New York Times or to rightists such as Moshe Arens in Haaretz, they are all speaking and analyzing about “The Peace Process” as if Hamas and Gaza didn’t exist. But even if Abbas was Mandela and Netanyahu was King Samuel, what exactly would a peace deal with only the West Bank entail? Gaza would still be run by religious fascists, armed to the teeth, keeping 1.5 million palestinians hostage, and ready to shell Israel to make sure any peace deal wouldn’t last. Which is really the incentive for Israel to give up land for peace when Israel would know for certain that it would not lead to peace?

2) And Hamas again….Hamas did not only win the last parliamentary elections with votes from Gaza. They also won in the West Bank, including in Jerusalem. The fact that Abu Mazen and Fatah is still in power there is a result of massive economic and military support from the US, not of popular support from the Palestinians. If a Palestinian state should be forced on the parties by the US, then this state would in all probability be taken over by Hamas within a year or two. And that would lead war, and most probably a re-occupation at a very steep price in human life and suffering.

As far as I see it, the current process has turned into nothing but a blame game, where both sides are maneuvering to make any real results impossible, while avoiding to draw the ire of the American President. And chances that such a game would yield anything but disappointment and possibly renewed rounds of violence are very, very limited. This is not to say that the situation is hopeless. Intellectuals both left and right, Jews and Arabs, are getting more and more clear that the other side is not going to disappear, and are thinking about new ways to understand the problem. And as usual, the people are often better than their leaders. So Arabs and Jews and Settlers and Palestinians keep rubbing against each other in Supermarkets, Shuks, NGO:s and settlements, and mostly refrain from killing each other, sometimes even becoming friends.

Three things about Islam – Click to watch

Comment:

The mainstream muslim interpretation of the “Taqiyya” concept is that lying is accepted as a way to avoid persecution, meaning you can deny being a muslim if it will save you from persecution and death. The fact that Arab politicians lie all the time is not much of evidence as…well politicians lie all the time, especially in the Middle East. Abbas and Arafat are well-known compulsive liars – and decidedly anti-religious, belonging to a decidedly secular, nationalist party.

While it is true that Islam is by nature political, this is also true of Judaism (with the exception of non-hallachic streams), and while it is true that Islam is a conquerors Religion, it doesn’t follow that all muslims form a secret network bent on conquest. And while there are Sharia courts in the west, there have been Bateii Din – Jewish Religious Courts – always and everywhere. I was a witness in one not a year ago. And why, if Islam is opposed to democracy, is the largest Muslim country in the world – Indonesia – a democracy, and a democracy at war with it’s Islamic terrorists? Finally: if Islam is such a violent and cruel religion, why are only a few thousands out of hundreds of millions terrorists?

To be clear: There are good an valid reasons to challenge easy and very PC ideas like “Christianity is a religion of peace” (The crusaders slaughtered **everyone** when they sacked Jerusalem as opposed to the Muslims who just slaughtered a bunch when they retook it) or “Islam is a religion of peace”. There are problems with radical political Islam in the world, there is no doubt. And there will be cultural clashes when a religion that was never “secularized” try to find it’s way in western society. But the people who will have you believe that you will learn anything useful about about Islam (or any other world religion) in an 8 minute video are not looking for solutions. They are fear mongers.

Truth is there has historically been great differences of interpretation within Islam. So great actually that the Sunni’s started regarding the Shiites as muslims only in the early 20th century. Before that they were at war. And armed conflict between them is still ongoing in i.e. Iraq. There are also small groups within Islam that are radical pacifists based on their interpretations and hence refuse to do military service. There are differing groups of Dervishes, the “Chassidim” of Islam are trying to connect to G-d by the means of dancing.

Fighting against Radical Islamism is absolutely necessary, as is making clear that the Law of the Land applies to everyone – rights as well as duties – and that this Law supersedes any findings of any religious courts. Fighting Islam itself however, and branding every muslim a secret conspirer in the Great Muslim Conspiracy, will only be absolutely counter productive and play into the hands of the Jihadists.

With enemies like these, radical islamists hardly need friends.

The bomber has been identified as 21 year old Muhammad Faisal al-Saksak.

There is really not much more to say about this; All has been said before. Targeting civilians versus military objectives and so on.

–
Die Weltwoche: “Sie klingen verbittert” – “Das bin ich”