Bush Turns Iraq into Israel/Palestine;
Gaffe endangers US Troops
Bush said in a speech on Thursday that he hopes Iraq will be like Israel, a democracy that faces terrorist violence but manages to retain its democratic character:
' In Israel, Bush said, "terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq." '
These words may be the stupidest ones ever uttered by a US president. Given their likely impact on the US war effort in the Middle East, they are downright criminal.
The US political elite just doesn't get it. Israel is not popular in the Middle East, and it isn't because Middle Easterners are bigots. It is because Israel is coded as the last European colonial presence in the region, an heir to French Algeria, British Egypt, and Dutch Indonesia-- and because the Israelis pugnaciously continue to try to colonize neighboring bits of territory. (This enmity is not inevitable or eternal; in 2002 the Arab League offered full recognition of Israel in return for its going back to 1967 borders, but the Israeli government turned down the offer.) But for the purposes of this analysis it does not really matter why Israel is unpopular. Let us just stipulate that it is. Why would you associate American Iraq with such an unpopular project, if you were trying to do public diplomacy in the region? Bush had just announced a new push to get the American message out to the Muslim world, the day before.
Let's just take the analogy seriously for a moment. Israel proper is a democracy of sorts, though its 1 million Arab citizens are in a second class position. But it rules over several million stateless Palestinians who lack even the pretence of self-rule. It is hard to characterize a country as a democracy when it has millions of disenfranchised subjects. Bush manages to only think about Jewish Israelis in the above analogy, wiping out millions of other residents of geographical Palestine who don't get to participate in 'democracy' or exercise popular sovereignty.
It is true that the Israelis managed to blunt the terror attacks of Islamic Jihad, the Qassam Brigades, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs brigades over the years after the eruption of the 2nd Intifada. But there are still attacks, including by rocket. The reason for those attacks is that the Palestinians had mostly been driven from their homes and off their land, and were militarily, politically and economically subjected to the Israelis. The Israelis reduced the terror attacks by essentially imprisoning millions of stateless Palestinians in the territories, further restricting their movements, destroying their trade and livelihoods. The Israeli government continues to grab Palestinian land and put more colonists on it, even as we speak.
Israel-Palestine is among the world's hottest trouble spots, and the conflict has poisoned politics throughout the Middle East. It was among the motives for Bin Laden's attack on the US on September 11, so it has spilled over on America, too. A second one of those would be a good thing?
So who would play the Palestinians in Bush's analogy? Obviously, it would be the Sunni Arabs, who apparently are meant to be cordoned off from the rest of Iraqis and put behind massive walls and barbed wire, and deprived of political power. That is not a desirable outcome and is not politically or militarily tenable in the long run.
And, let's just stop and think. Even if it were true that an Israel-Palestine sort of denouement were in Bush's mind for Iraq, was it wise for him to make it public?
That sort of scenario is precisely the propaganda message broadcast by the Jihadi websites in Iraq and the Arab world! They say that the US military occupation of Iraq, in alliance with Shiites, has turned the Sunni Arabs into Palestinians! Bush could not have handed the guerrillas a better rhetorical gift. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that DVD's of Bush's comments will be spread around as a recruiting tool for jihadis, and that US troops will certainly be killed as a result of this speech. You could say that the US military presence is already pretty unpopular in the Sunni Arab areas. But what of the progress in al-Anbar Province? Will Bush's speech help or hurt Sunni Arabs who want to ally with the US against the foreign Salafi Jihadis? Hurt, obviously.
If Bush had said something like that in 2002, you could have written it off as inexperience and lack of knowledge of the Middle East. But he has been the sitting president for so many years, and has had so much to do with the Middle East that this faux pas is just inexcusable. I don't know the man and can't judge if he is just not very bright. I can confirm that he says things that are not very bright. And, worse, he says things that are guaranteed to put more US troops into the grave in Diyala, Baghdad, Salahuddin and al-Anbar Provinces.
I don't know whether to sob in grief or tear my hair out in frustration. How much longer do we have to suffer?
Labels: monumental stupidity
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/29/2007 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
33 Comments:
Great entry. Sadly, you're not supposed criticize Israel in anyway. You may get in trouble.:*-(
beautiful juan. i feel your frustration. maybe some day peace.
'If Bush had said something like that in 2002, you could have written it off as inexperience and lack of knowledge of the Middle East. But he has been the sitting president for so many years, and has had so much to do with the Middle East that this faux pas is just inexcusable.'
I'll have to disagree. Anyone who asks for and receives (or is awarded) the office of the Presidency MUST have a command of the issues that have confronted it since at least around 1948, even within Younger George's lifetime.
That said, and agreeing with you, there is really no reason 'why' such comments are being made, except that it might justify others' remarks that the Iraq Debacle was initiated and carried out at the Israelites' behest and request, if not demand. As you'
ve put it, Israelia is the last outpost of European colonisalism, more specifically British. With the Buscists/Republicans as notorious Anglophiles, there is a sort of logical extension to their collective support of any English efforts in reviving or resuscitating or resurrecting colonial efforts in and around the Middle East, if only to regain control over the petroleum resources thereabouts.
What other demographic or sociopolitical agendas are in work is only speculation. Will there be some future initiative to mandate Iraq as the long-lost home for the Arab Diaspora, a place where they can all return once upon a later time to relive some fantasies of the Caliphate and other illusions of grandeur, like some Arabian (K)Nights (now that we have 'Tony of Arabia' coming on board) theme park with hookahs and carpets and belly dancers, everybody tapping to their toes to Maria Muldaur's 'Midnight at the Oasis'? Watching Valentino as 'The Sheik' flickering on the side of some tent?
As in Palestine, the Iraqis are undergoing a transformation with the introduction of anti-'Western' sentiment, revolving around war-spawned prostitution in refugee camps in Syria (and elsewhere), opium crops and drug smuggling to undermine the 'West,' and various other questionable causes promoted by the displacement of indigenous peoples. It is nice that the Americans have finally begun to accept Iraqis as refugees, reportedly going to Lansing, MI. While this is an humanitarian response and effort, we might want to consider who's might emerge in a similar guise as the Londonistan '7/7 Kids,' visiting madrasahs and becoming somewhat sympathetic to the 'cause.' We recall that Atta's request for a visa extension arrived some six months after his (reported) interaction with one of the NYC WTC towers. So much for government vigilance.
While 99% of any people are fine, law-abiding, upstanding representatives of their groups, there is always that remaining 1% that might find some allegiance to the 'old country,' something that the Americans have been all-too-nice in accepting, whether supporting the diaspora or exile communities, various revolutionary groups, or just those who have a need to maintain ties to their antecedents' heritages for any number of reasons. Numerous groups have been known to use their American incomes for active support of relatives in other countries, ostensibly to augment foreign incomes. What really happens is pretty much up to fate, with 'coyotes' and 'snakeheads' perhaps absorbing much of the revenue for their own purposes, among many other possible sues for expatriated monies. We've already seen what fellows like Chalabi can do with a few million Dollars. We can only wonder what others can do with whatever they receive.
Any attempts at 'ghetto'-ising people and keeping them under the watchful eyes of the authoritarians is bound to backfire at some point. Creating national entities that merely serve as concentration camps populated by trustees is hardly a solution. At any time, the commandants can cut off funding and support, creating any number of other problems that will benefit no one in the longer term. But, as politicians have positions that change as often as the phases of the Moon, the blame can be passed on to any of those who follow down the garden path, tripping over the same exposed roots and falling into the same ruts. The American minorities have long been subject to these kinds of support variables; merely increasing the numbers of these, at home and abroad, is bound to be counterproductive overall.
Secrecy works to the Buscists' advantage in that anyone coming behind them will be seen as even more incompetent, despite promises to be able to 'fix' the problems. We saw this early in 1993 with Somalia, the first NYC WTC bombing, and Waco, all of which were inherited from the previous administration. While the ultimate onus fell on BillJeff and his Bubbas, planning for all had to have been on-going well before even the election of November 1992.
We have to wonder at the sense of ethics and responsibility that exists in the D of C when there is either some sort of set-up to embarrass the successor or there is a successor's willful disregard of the facts and issues confronting the nation. When there is an excessive fawning on foreigners (as we've seen Younger George and his 'adoptive mother,' Queen Lizzie), the United States is more and more like Rick's Cafe in 'Casablanca' that serves as a clearing house for every possible combination of nefarious plotters, foreign and domestic and partisans everyone of them. Perhaps we'll all wind up selling bolts of cloth in the market one day, essentially working for the likes of Rick or Ferrari or Renault or Strasser, any or all of them, depending on what quarter hour it is!
Further reading:
Selling one's body and soul:
'50,000 Iraqi refugees' forced into
prostitution
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2701324.ece
Selling stuff to take others' bodies and souls:
Opium: Iraq's deadly new export
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2573299.ece
Selling out one's body and soul:
First big wave of Iraqi refugees heads for the US
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070626/ts_csm/orefuge_1
I plan to tear my hair out. Any sliver of doubt that the US favors Israel in the conflict has been set aside. I am pressed to find a worse country, Israel, to duplicate. We have a lot of damage control in our future!
Juan, judging by your pic, I would recommend you sob.
save those last hairs for a rainy day.
Me, I go back and forth between catatonia and seething rage. truly unbelievable what these people have done to our country. and I feel it every day.
keep up the good work. thanks.
pontificant.
"I don't know whether to sob in grief or tear my hair out in frustration. How much longer do we have to suffer?"
My feelings are of overwhelming impotence. They're just so damn immoveable.
Dear Professor,
This is a slightly off topic, but I hope you'll address this.
I've seen many right wing writers and websites make the claim that there is no historical basis for a land called Palestine.
In my research for the novel I am currently writing, I've come across references to Roman provinces of Palestine and Byzantine provinces of Palestine.
This is not a rhetorical question, but how do they get away with claiming there is no historical basis for a land called Palestine?
"I don't know the man and can't judge if he is just not very bright. I can confirm that he says things that are not very bright. And, worse, he says things that are guaranteed to put more US troops into the grave in Diyala, Baghdad, Salahuddin and al-Anbar Provinces."
"Stupid is as stupid does." - Forrest Gump
Very good article. You could have included the fact that there are 1,100 Palestinians being held without trial in Israeli jails. Many of them have been in jail for years. Perhaps President Bush would regard Guantanamo Bay as a similar example. I would not consider either example as a way forward for a new democracy in any country.
Graham Birkin, U.K.
All Bush was trying to say was that democracy is sustainable even in the face of terrorism. That's it. He used Israel as an example. And for all its faults, Israel still has plenty of democratic features. On this one statement, can't you just cut Bush some slack instead of accusing him of murdering more people? Does he have to draw out in minute detail the potential interpretations of every analogy he makes?
Hi Dr. Cole,
I'd like to respectfully disagree with a small part of your argument. I don't think cheney and his subordinate W. will allow the sunnis to be isolated like the Palestinians, I think that the Shiites will be the real community that is isolated. The context of this evidenced by the lack of real concern about the Saudi backed Sunni Wahabi/Salafi jihadis. Once again the Saudi's are never held to account for their near universal duplicity in the "GWOT", funding for Pakistan's N-bomb, and their many other known and unknown activities within Iraq that undermine Iraqi security.
Iran is cheney's real target. He needs to create a new super-foe for ligitimising US bases in Iraq. Thus, the Shiites can only be the ultimate losers in Iraq.
And finally, what can you tell about the MEK? I haven't heard about them for a while, and when I do it has to be gleaned from between the lines, so to speak.
Please keep up the good work, best wishes from Canada.
I think it's great news that Bush has actually blurted out what he wants, and what in fact the American empire has been doing all along. What's to sob about? Is it bad news if a child molestor blurts out in public what he has been doing to his neices and nephews? Isn't the real bad news that he's been deceiving the world and getting away with it?
Bill Clinton and his predecessor got away with the last great genocide of the 20th and the first of the 21st - hundreds of thousands of lkittle kids by Madeleine Albright's admission on television - and nobody called him on it. The Arab quislings, betraying their own people for crumbs from their masters like Mohammed Dahlan and Mahmooud Abbas, were not completetly obvious to all.
Well now they are, a little more. There's this to like about Bush - he keeps telling us the real thoughts and plans of the lords of the known universe. It's interesting to see that people don't hate him for doing these things, but for having the indiscretion to proclaim them - in other words, for his only plus.
President Bush has always seems to not have a grip on the Middle East. When he came into office he seemed to make a deliberate attempt to do the exact opposite of President Clinton.
My concern is that it seems that he is trying to start a Biblical war or refight the crusades of a thousand years ago. He seems to think that everyone who is not a Christian is evil.
I do feel that he wants peace in the Middle East, but I have to wonder about the kind of peace, the peace of cooperation or that which results from extermination or purging of the unwanted.
The Bush administration and their neocon allies continue to search desperately for some definition of an acceptable level of violence In Iraq. Their latest analogy to the level of violence in Israel is one more in a long string of flawed analogies. The analogy they never make is the one that's most relevant: to the level of violence in post-war Vietnam.
Sounds like a Rove analogy being mouthed by Bush. Say anything to spin the Iraqi Holocaust into something else. Further postulating that Iraq is to the US as the Occupied Territories are to Israel.
Actually, Bush DID say something like this in 2002 or thereabouts. Remember he called the GWOT a "Crusade," and then had to hastily retract it? Then there was "Operation Infinite Justice"--retraction. And of course his "Axis of Evil" concoction--NO retraction.
By holding Israel up as an example Bush is ALSO saying that the external, and to some extent internal, Iraqi refugees WON'T be allowed home again. Now that's a cheery thought.
Mr Cole
what a brilliant article , it was fabuluous . I had to share it with everyone i knew . i wanted to respond to Mr Bush comment on many forums but i could not say it as well as you so i just linked to your amazing article . Bravo you did it again Mr Cole .
And the US is turning Palestine into Iraq. CNN did an interview with Nir Rosen that said that the US, working with Jordan and Egypt, trained Fatah fighters to attack the Hamas government. A transcript is in a June 28th entry at TinyRevolution.
Rosen states outright that General Dayton and Elliott Abrams, working with Egypt and Jordan, armed and trained Fatah fighters for this operation.
So, let's see. We have a Sunni, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization (Hamas) being attacked by critical-but-shaky US allies, Egypt and Jordan to support Israel.
This should go down real well across the region.
Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.wordpress.com
Prof. Cole, I don't know how you look this madness in the face every day and continue to write so cogently and incisively about it. All I know is I'm glad you do. What this manchild has done to our country, like a previous commenter said, leads me to vary between catatonia and seething rage. I still have most of my hair but the longer this goes on.......geez. Prayers for Iraqis and American soldiers-and thanks Prof. Cole.
It's perfectly acceptable to criticize Israel. But there needs to be some basis for it, since, as much as we don't like to admit it, there are still many people motivated by anti-semitic hatred. That being said, Dr. Cole is always very good about explaining and qualifying his opinions on Israel. As an Israeli living in America, I tend to agree with him often. I criticize my own government just as plenty of Americans criticize the Bush administration. The problem is that the playing field is not leveled, so we hear more criticism of Israel from Israelis, which can sometimes be misleading.
Can disagree with nothing in your comments except for the choice of the Sunnis in the Palestinian role. The Bush administration has waffled--first they were the bad guys and all had to go, then Bush was worried about Shiite power and links with Iran and tried to integrate Sunnis, and he continues to wobble. In truth, I don't think he knows who the bad guys are, now simply captured by the words "the insurgency."
Interesting as always but rather pointless. This is playing to your base politics, the 30% of Americans who think this war can and should be won. This sort of comment can only make sense in messianic terms.
I think Prof, you should put up a vote for next odd and pointless analogy instead of wasting your time.
Juan Cole: "in 2002 the Arab League offered full recognition of Israel in return for its going back to 1967 borders, but the Israeli government turned down the offer"
Hmmm, all that that the Arab League required of Israel in return for full recognition, peace, and guarantees of security was that Israel "go() back to 1967 borders"? There was nothing about "Right of Return," with its portentous implications, and other similarly problematic conditions?
Holding up Israel as an example has always been used by the politicians. There was Barney Frank boasting on how Israel granted asylum to Palestinian gay refugees who would have otherwise been beaten if they were sent back (and taking a swipe at Palestinians while he is at it), except for the fact that none of them got asylum, not to mention that Palestinian gays are frequently targeted by Israel intelligence to spy on their own people so as not to be exposed.
There was also Al Gore, praising Israel on how their High Court has clearly defined that torture (as they define it) is illegal and how our system should follow it. Except for the fact that, Israel's High Court ruling allowed pretty much any detainees to be tortured.
Jeff: "I've seen many right wing writers and websites make the claim that there is no historical basis for a land called Palestine.
In my research for the novel I am currently writing, I've come across references to Roman provinces of Palestine and Byzantine provinces of Palestine.
This is not a rhetorical question, but how do they get away with claiming there is no historical basis for a land called Palestine?
"
Quite right, the Romans did designate the land Palestine. And at that time, it was inhabited by the Jewish forebears of today's Israelis. Palestine was how the land was once again designated by Jews returning there before the state of Israel was recognized in 1948. Those who now refer to themselves as "Palestinians" are Arabs.
So, Jeff, you are correct, there is a historical basis for a "Palestine," one that considerably antedates the Roman Era. (see the Bible for details, as well as various history and archaelogy texts, both recent and ancient) That state with the historical basis you allude to, once again called Israel, was formally re-established in 1948, when the British Mandate, which succeeded Ottoman rule there, ended and the United Nations recognized the Israel as a sovereign nation in the same way it has recognized other successors to colonial rule since. (If you were to observe by way of contrast that many of Israel's regional neighbors, e.g., Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc., don't have nearly as ancient identies or deep roots as sovereign entities, you would be quite right on that too.)
Though it is a novel, that is fiction, you are writing, I applaud you for wanting to get the background history correct.
To Anonymous
"Quite right, the Romans did designate the land Palestine. And at that time, it was inhabited by the Jewish forebears of today's Israelis."
This is a flawed argument. It is incorrect to assume that the descendants of Jews from thousands of years ago are automatically Jewish today. You are ignoring, of course, the overwhelmingly large number of Jews who converted to Islam while Palestine was under Muslim rule. The same phenomenon occurred in Arabia, Persia, North Africa, and elsewhere, and is part of the reason why Judaism -- though far older -- has far fewer adherents than Islam, in the Middle East and around the world.
That is not to knock Judaism, which is a noble religion, nor to suggest that Israel should not exist. But the fact is that conversion away from it has been, and still is, more frequent than conversion to it. Take Arabia as one example. There were Jews there for thousands of years before Muslims were there. But nobody seriously suggests that Saudi Arabia should be a Jewish state because Jews were there before Muslims. The Jewish tribes converted to Islam.
So even if you want to go by the argument of "who was here first" (a childish and empty form of reasoning, particularly given the US's own history), the Muslims have at least as much of a claim to the Holy Land as anyone else. I hope one day there will be true democracy and true peace there, for all races and religions, as there is here in America.
To Anonymous (presumably not the same Anonymous as above)
"On this one statement, can't you just cut Bush some slack instead of accusing him of murdering more people? Does he have to draw out in minute detail the potential interpretations of every analogy he makes?"
First, Juan did not use the word "murder."
Second, it doesn't take an analysis in "minute detail" to realize what Israel represents in the Middle East. "Israel," for many in the region -- rightly or wrongly -- represents "colonialism, theocracy, and oppression."
According to Bob Woodward's "State of Denial," Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Bush's good friend, has warned the President about the perceptions of the Israel-Palestine issue directly and repeatedly. So this is not a question of ignorance or off-handedness.
This is, quite simply, another one of Bush's "bring it on" comments. If he wanted an example of a democracy fighting terrorism and still acting like a democracy, he should have used Turkey.
To Juan
You're the man.
What does this whole Bush selected bogus presidency thanks to daddys money and pals say about Yale and Harvard though?
It was conventional wisdom that Yale and Harvard silver spooner elitist private colleges were supposed to admit and graduate the finest minds in America.
Is Yale and Harvard proud of their grauate who got the White House bought for him?
Why dont they speak up? Why dont confess that either this carpetbagging Texas New England born yank is either faking it or really is the ignorant person on the planet?
Didnt JFK got to Harvard?
All of us commoners out in the real world can only look at Yale and Harvard and interpret this Bush phenomneon as a reflection on Yale and Harvard since if this is the true essense of what they really produce then we have all been conned into thinking they were great institutions of higher learning when now we know they may be as fake and bogus as Bush and his fake wars and lies with ignorant words saying whatever lunacy pops into his cocaine alcohol silver spoon ravaged damaged brain.
Great product you both produced there Yale and Harvard for undergrad and grad production. We can throw in Andover prep school too since we know Bush the chickenliver was scared to play football in high school and college and instead opted and cut and run to cheer with the girls so he wouldnt get hurt or dirty the story of his sorry worthless life while pretending to be a savior of the worlds peasantry.
Daddy and mr mommy should be admonished for having anal sex back in late 1945 to produce this humanturd and then Yale and Harvard allowing this idiot in proving money and pals buys everything.
Anonymous:"Quite right, the Romans did designate the land Palestine. And at that time, it was inhabited by the Jewish forebears of today's Israelis."
A partial truth. The ancient Canaan was inhabited by canaanite non-hebrew stock before, during and after the Hebrews came there. The name 'Palestine' given by the Romans to the land does not come (surprise!) from the Hebrew tribes that lived there but from the Philistines, a non-Hebrew people. That the Romans choose one people over the other to give its name to the land speaks a lot about relative importance, at least for them.
I was over at the ABC website reading the responses to the leak of a secret "Homeland Security" (that name still gives me the shivers) document which says that the U.S. can expect spectacular "terror" attacks this summer.
I didn't read all of them but in the hundred or so posts I skimmed
through there was not one mention of the root causes of "Islamic terror."
No one mentioned our support of Israel's slow genocide of the Palestinians, our training and aiding Fatah in order to incite a civil war, or our support of Israel's attack on Lebanon last year.
There was not one mention of the fact that there have been approximately a few million deaths because of our sanctions on and invasion of, Iraq. Or of the civilians we routinely slaughter in Afghanistan.
Instead there were countless comments about rounding up all Muslims,and either expelling or killing them. There were also comments suggesting that we flatten all countries from Pakistan to Turkey (obviously the commentators aren't aware of Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, to name a few other countries with large Muslim populations)
Pro-Israel propagandists, and I include the U.S. government, media and entertainment industry in that group, have done their work -- the vast majority of Americans now hate all Muslims and are willing to launch World War III and kill at least 1.3 billion people for their religion alone.
This while refusing to acknowledge that it is our own actions that are causing the blowback, ranging from our unconditional support of Israel and her apartheid, wars and genocide, to our own terrible actions in Muslim countries.
I fear the end is near. What surprises me is that the neo-conservatives and Likudites don't understand that this means that we ALL die, even they themselves and their spawn.
The President seems to be following a pattern of putting the Crisis in the 'Arc of Crisis' and continuing to tighten it around some very valuable real estate.
One can only judge a gaffe from a cunning provocation if one is sure of the motive.
Have we not yet learned to 'read between the lines'?
What's remarkable is just how much "iraqi democracy" HAS been modeled on israel. The national id cards with the confessional status (sunni, shi'ite, christian, etc.) duly noted.
The arbitrary demarcation of the nation into a "kurdish north" "shi'a south" and "sunni triangle" instead of already existing provincial division for the purpose the constitutional elections. (Compare with Israel's nation wide single district so all seat at the Knesset are "at large.")
Perhaps it's instructive to recall the proposed blue and white "new iraqi" flag, which bore a more than passing resemblance to the Israeli flag and indeed fairly screamed to the arab world "you lads can have whatever's west of the Euphrates."
This Bushist mirrorspeak reflects their warrin' policy of Manifest Insanity.
It may seem unwise however it is playing on what the administration had in mind from the start a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of a “Catastrophic Emergency” emergency. inciting war with Iran and comments such as these bring him closer to that objective by stirring the problems up. more on this can be read here http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/bush_nspd51_to_be_dictator_in_catastrophic_emergency.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home