Al Qaeda enters Fray
The Israeli occupation of Jerusalem has long been an al Qaeda bugbear. It sent Richard Reid to case El Al, israeli airlines. It hit Israeli tourists in Mombasa and the Sinai. But Bin Laden always avoided investing in an area where there was already an active insurgency. He also could not join in with heretical Shiites like Hizbulah.
Ayman al Zawahiri today made a change in both policies. He wants al Qaeda to pile on in Gaza and to defend Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Sunni Arab regimes have been reluctant to press too hard for ceasefire because they see Hizbullah as an agent of Iran. This foot dragging has been unpopular among the public. Al Qaeda is now playing to that gallery.
As usual, Israel is radicalizing the Muslim world. The US, too, will suffer.
Zawahiri has turned to pan Islam and the Near Enemy. He is willing to help Nasrallah and the Qassam Brigades. It is a historic about face. It could be significant. More later.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/27/2006 03:54:00 AM
|
Facebook
15 Comments:
I am amazed whenever I turn on the news and hear U.S. Senators applaud the fact that "friendly" Arab governments (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Hezbollah.
Are these U.S. senators so completely out of touch with reality?? Do they think that millions of Egyptians, Jordanians & Saudi's - watching their brethren being killed with American bombs are against Hezbollah???
Don't these U.S. senators know that NONE of the above governments have the support of the people they "represent"?!!
If free & fair elections were held in ANY of these countries today, ALL of these regimes would be replaced with Hezbollah like rulers.
It seems they are playing the same game as Newt Gingrich: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/672
"As usual, Israel is radicalizing the Muslim world. The US, too, will suffer."
Why, oh why, would al Qaeda blame the US?
WHO'S ARMING ISRAEL?"
When you say the United States will suffer, who are you writing about?
It seems the Republican Party and the Bush administration see more conflict as a way to amplify voters' xenophobic fears.
And once the voters are scared they can be manipulated.
So, causing the conflict with Islam to get worse may hurt the United States as a whole, but within the United States there will be winners (Republican interest groups and companies like Halliburton) within the rest of us losers.
(off topic)
Please go see Lady in the Water.
M. Night Shyamalan explores symbolism taken to extremes in all his films, but never before to this extent. Film critics (w/ the exception of the Washington Post) generally miss the mark. Damn, they can't even recognize the mark, a lot like the UN_bombing IDF. I digress.
Sixth Sense and Unbreakable together make one film about parenting or guardianship. As near as I can tell, Signs stands alone. The Village and this Lady in the Water (who might that be?) make one film about decicions and mistakes currently being made by the myopic GWB et cabal.
What's up with that guy who works out only his right arm? Discuss amongst yourselves. Mingle, mingle.
Looks like more "birth pangs" from our bloody midwives. I would comment that the whole "birth pangs" concept seemed so freaky and groteque to me (and others of course) that I did a little searching [just Google the phrase] and found that "birth pangs" is clearly Christian Evangelical code for the end times in guess where...Israel!
I think an important story is being missed about Maliki's trip to the US.
Maliki, in his opening remarks about during his joint press conference with Bush spoke extensively about how the Iraqi military and security forces need equipment that it does not currently have in order for Iraq to be fully sovereign, as opposed to dependent on the United States.
He spoke about that a lot more than about the next installment of "Operation Pacify Baghdad".
Bush, when he next spoke, said that US generals had reviewed Maliki's requests and that Bush agrees with whatever the generals said.
Of course, the degree of Iraqi sovereignty and independence from the United States is a fundamental political issue, not a military one.
It was characteristically cowardly of Bush to hide his political decision behind the military that is following his orders.
But judging by Maliki's statement, that seems to be the true story of this visit, and Maliki hearing directly from the US President himself that the US does not intend to allow a fully independent Iraq to form is likely to have some impact in the future.
A transcript of the press conference is here, among other places.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/NEWS06/607260482
Mr. Cole,
Despite your expertise on the Middle East, you seem to completely miss the issue here.
the issue is the leadership of the global jihad. Staring with the Iranian revolution, Iran was the undisputed leader of the jihad. But with al-Qaeda's attacks on the US (as well as Iran's dealings with the US and Israel in the 80's) it lost that position. Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial as well as calls to wipe Israel off the map were an attempt to regain its leadership position. With Hizbullah's attack on Israel, the Shiite leadership of the jihad seems secure. al Qaeda, of course, can not allow Shiites to be in the vanguard, so now is issuing these meaningless calls to "pile on in Gaza". (According to most intelligence estimates, al Qaeda already has a presence in Gaza).
Far from being a meaningful change in al Qaeda policy, this is merely the usual Shiite/Sunni battle for supremacy in Islam.
It is clear that the Israeli and Americans believe that they can defeat this terror threat by literally killing off all the "terrorists". That is the only explanation one can come up for some of their insane decisions.
Do they not think that Arabs, unlike all other human species, do not reproduce offspring??
Do they not understand that when you bomb people's houses and kill their family members, that the human instinct for revenge grows?
Maybe an American more familiar with the culture can explain to me why most Americans seem incapable of understanding these basic elements of human nature.
On the macro level: a married couple begin to bicker in a bar. Their visit becomes increasingly acrimonious as they seethe with alcohol-fueled contempt for each other. The couple's behavior escalates from verbal abuse to threats to actual physical violence. A third party (let's say a man) intervenes to try and stop them: the couple turn on the man and together beat him into a bloody pulp.
The best way to unite is to divide. The best way to divide is to unite.
+++
You cannot win a counterinsurgency with airpower.
The New York Times:JERUSALEM, July 27 — A day after Israel suffered its worst losses in Lebanon, the government today ruled out a major military escalation for now, opting to continue focusing on wide-ranging airstrikes and limited ground incursions along the border.
While Israelis overwhelmingly back the military operations in Lebanon, a growing number of politicians and media commentators are calling for a more intense ground campaign to drive Hezbollah militants away from Israel’s northern border, where they have been launching 100 rockets or more on most days.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s security cabinet did, however, approve call-ups for up to three divisions of reserve soldiers — an estimated 30,000 troops — which suggested Israel was gearing up for the possibility of a protracted conflict.
The present wait-and-see attitude out of Washington, D.C., may let this conflict evolve on regional dynamics -- toward a larger offensive and a prolonged engagement. That would spell disaster for the global war on terrorism.
But this is the president of false visions. His ideas, his gut-feelings, are leading us to disaster.
As usual, Israel is radicalizing the Muslim world. The US, too, will suffer.
You seem to imply that the US would suffer because of the Israelians. However the US has all latitude to adopt an other policy and to dissociate herself from the cruel campaign waged by the Israeli. Why didn't they joint the EU, China and Russia in requesting an immediate ceasefire in Roma ? Whey don't they rein in the Israeli ? Why do they hypocritely pretend that Israel has a right to defen herself ? Every country has the right to defend himself. That it recognized in the international laws. But what the US did to Iraq and what the Israelians are doing to Lebanon has absolutely nothing to do with any right to defend itself. This is pure aggression.
And be sure that the unconditional US support to the Israeli isn't only radicalizing the Muslims countries. Here in the EU, public support for the US and the Israelians is down to level zero.
Obviously the fusion of a fanatical religion and extreme nationalism has robbed Israel of the ability to see that what it is doing is achieving exactly the opposite of what it wants.
In this blindness, it is assisted by America which also suffers from the same problem. Never has the saying that: "Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it," been so true and so tragic.
"birth pangs", indeed.
i am reminded of Mary Shelley's novel: "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein
...the novel (1831) almost entirely obscured by 20th Century films' re-interpretation of her original intent and inherent ironies, including: "birth pangs," written, perhaps as only a woman could ~ being somehow, "horrible" beyond imagination and "grotesque" to behold (to the male/father's psyche?)
"...the creature was not an "evil creation", it was born an innocent blank slate; it was Victor's REJECTION of the creature that taught it to be evil."
We could apply her allegory to either ISRAEL or, to the new, democratically elected Theocracy "creatures" of ISLAM ~ with equal facility: both were REJECTED, "evil," thus.
Ancient animosities, base race instincts notwithstanding, i tend to view 'Our Struggle' as that of Humanism vs Fundamentalism (whether Judeo-, Christo- or Islamo- flavour)
and, perhaps ~ though more difficult for me to adequately express, their alter-egos: Democracy vs Theocracy :-/
The translation at NY Times has some interesting excerpts:
How can we remain silent, being the sons of Abi Bakar, Othman, Hamza, Ja'afar, Ali, al-Hussein, Sa'ad, Khaled, Talha, al-Zobier, Akrama, Salah al-Din, Yusef ibn-Tashfeen, and Muhammad the Conqueror?
This sounds to me like an olive branch to Shia since holy names for Shia are also listed. Prof. Cole, can you comment on this please, comparing this list with previous such announcements? Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home