<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Barry Rubin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/barry-rubin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Hear No Middle East, See No Middle East</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/hear-no-middle-east-see-no-middle-east/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hear-no-middle-east-see-no-middle-east</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/hear-no-middle-east-see-no-middle-east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 23:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Rubin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=93862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama asks Israel to make suicidal concessions -- while completely misreading the current upheavals in the Arab world. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/hear2.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-93865" title="hear" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/hear2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /></a></p>
<p>President Barack  Obama’s speech on Middle East policy did more damage to U.S.-Israel  relations than anything said by any previous president during the almost  forty-year alliance between the two countries. Yet, ironically, the  speech wasn’t intended to be on Israel at all; Obama apparently thought  he was being friendly toward Israel; and the point that created the  biggest controversy was something that the president didn’t even say.</p>
<p>The crisis, then, was caused by three factors:   The  ignorance of the Obama Administration over the issues involved; Obama’s  chronic lack of friendliness toward Israel; and his refusal to  recognize the threat from revolutionary Islamism.</p>
<p>His speech mainly  focused on a totally uncritical evaluation of the current upheavals in  the Arab world. The idea that Egypt is about to become a radical state,  that the Egypt-Israel treaty is jeopardized, and that Israel is now  facing the prospect of a renewed enemy to its southwest with twelve  times its own population simply has not entered Obama’s calculations.</p>
<p>In other words,  Obama is asking Israel to make risky concessions at the very moment when  its security situation is potentially at its worst in the last thirty  years. The assumption that Arab states would not launch a conventional  war on Israel—which has prevailed since Egypt moved toward peace in  1978—no longer holds.</p>
<p>The fact that the  president blithely sees no danger whatsoever from the Egyptian situation  or the current upheavals in the region—a point that was the main theme  of his speech—reduces his credibility with Israel to zero.</p>
<p>A second factor  that makes Obama’s timing dangerously thoughtless is that he is  rewarding the Palestinian Authority (PA) after it made a cooperation  deal with the revolutionary Islamist group Hamas. Of course, Hamas is an  openly antisemitic organization that makes no secret of its refusal to  recognize Israel, its pride in committing terrorism, and its intention  to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews.</p>
<p>Obama did take a  stronger stance against the merger than the U.S. government has done  previously. But so what? He has taken no sanctions against the PA for  engaging in a merger that virtually tears up the Israel-PLO agreement of  1992. He doesn’t even criticize the PA for doing so. Hamas is for  Israel what al-Qaida is for America.</p>
<p>In practice, Obama  accepts the entry of Hamas into the PA government, just as he accepts  that of Hizballah into Lebanon’s government, and the Muslim Brotherhood  into Egypt’s government. While the president’s rhetoric on Israel and  the Palestinians is studiously “even-handed” his policy is clearly on  the other side, that of Israel’s and America’s enemies.</p>
<p>I don’t think  Obama realizes this fact. But who cares? That’s what he’s doing and it  is catastrophic for the United States, its Arab allies, and Israel. .</p>
<p>But there’s more!  In his speech Obama took a tough verbal stance against the PA’s plan to  get the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine independence unilaterally  in September. That this is a total violation of all agreements made by  the PLO and PA since 1992 doesn’t seem to register with Western  governments, though almost all of them will vote against it.</p>
<p>While it is nice  to know that the Obama Administration will vote against the proposal—one  can’t take anything for granted with this president—that’s not what’s  most important. In line with his principle of not taking leadership,  Obama isn’t lobbying strenuously to press other countries to oppose the  measure or the PA to drop the idea, and certainly isn’t threatening to  punish them if they do.</p>
<p>Thus, this fiasco,  which destroys even the chance for any Israel-PA talks in 2011 and  perhaps for far longer, is partly the result of American passivity.</p>
<p>Yet the list of  administration mistakes on these issues is still not complete. In his  speech, Obama proposed a plan. Again, he tipped his hat at Israel by  saying that he wouldn’t try to impose a solution—no doubt thinking that  would win him praise from Israel—but then made a proposal that totally  tramples on Israel’s interests.</p>
<p>Obama’s idea was  that Israel would withdraw from the remainder of the West Bank and turn  it over to the PA in exchange for unspecified security guarantees.  Palestine could become a state and the issues of Jerusalem and refugees  would be postponed.</p>
<p>The effect of such  an outcome would be to throw away all of Israel’s leverage on the  remaining issues; free the Palestinians to do what they wanted; and  exchange real strategic assets (land) for promises written on paper  (security guarantees). Given the PA’s past practices and the  European-American implementation of their own pledges, that would be  very flimsy paper indeed.</p>
<p>Then there is  Obama’s refusal to give credit to Israel for the ways it has already  shown its desire for peace, readiness to make concessions, and  willingness to take risks in order to resolve the conflict. He never  mentions that Israel has already withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula,  returned small amounts of territory to Jordan, pulled completely out of  Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, and given the PA all the Arab-populated  portions of the West Bank (except a small area in Hebron).</p>
<p>Most annoying of  all, in discussing what Israel has done “wrong” in the speech he said  that Israeli settlement activity is continuing. Since Israel froze  construction for nine months at Obama’s request (and the PA then refused  to talk) one might expect some gratitude on the president’s part for  Israel’s cooperation and some criticism for the PA’s refusal to do what  Obama asked.</p>
<p>If Obama refuses  to acknowledge, much less reward, Israeli cooperation and concessions in  the past, Israelis and Israeli leaders know that he won’t do so in  future. If Obama refuses to maintain past U.S. pledges to Israel—like  the country being able to annex settlement blocs and support for Israel  being recognized by the PA as a Jewish state in a peace  agreement—Israelis have no faith in any promises including security  guarantees he offers in future.</p>
<p>Given all this, it  is ironic that the big controversy was regarding Obama’s sentence on  borders. What he said is completely in line with past U.S. policy. He  didn’t demand Israel return to the 1967 borders but called for those  serving as the basis of an agreement with mutually agreed changes. So  Israel would have to accept any future borders. Since Israel won’t agree  to return to the 1967 borders, then, that will never happen.</p>
<p>Israel is not  going to allow a president with no credibility, who clearly doesn’t  understand what’s at stake, fails to support his Arab allies, is soft on  his Iranian and Syrian enemies, doesn’t learn from his past errors, is  sacrificing U.S. interests in the region, and pays no attention to  what’s happening in Egypt, to determine its future.</p>
<p>And it isn’t just  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who thinks that way. There’s a  national consensus on the issue. For almost two and a half years, Israel  has played along with Obama, working hard to avoid friction, because  the relationship with the United States is of tremendous importance.  There was some hope that Obama would learn from experience or, at least,  the bilateral relationship could muddle through his four-year term.</p>
<p>Now, however, in  large part because of the revolution in Egypt definitely headed toward  radicalism and probably toward Islamism, and the PA’s readmission of  Hamas—as well as Obama’s failure to learn much about the Middle East and  Israel’s situation—that effort has come to an end.</p>
<p>Barry Rubin is director of the <a href="http://www.gloria-center.org">Global Research in International Affairs</a> (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/">PajamasMedia</a> His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is<a href="http://www.gloria-center.org/" target="_blank"></a>. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles <a href="http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/">available here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/hear-no-middle-east-see-no-middle-east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>J’Accuse: The New York Times Promotes Muslim Brotherhood Lies, Covering Up For Nazi Collaborators</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/j%e2%80%99accuse-the-new-york-times-promotes-muslim-brotherhood-lies-covering-up-for-nazi-collaborators/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=j%25e2%2580%2599accuse-the-new-york-times-promotes-muslim-brotherhood-lies-covering-up-for-nazi-collaborators</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/j%e2%80%99accuse-the-new-york-times-promotes-muslim-brotherhood-lies-covering-up-for-nazi-collaborators/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Rubin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Right to Exist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[righttoexist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=120778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, Tariq Ramadan, considered by the Western intelligentsia to be the very epitome of enlightened Islamism, wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he was not only allowed--among other total lies--to deny that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and his grandfather, who then led the group, were  Nazi collaborators before, during, and even after World War Two. In fact, he dares claim--because he knows the mainstream media will not expose this lie--that the Muslim Brotherhood was an anti-fascist organization!]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tariqramadan_248084e.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-120786" title="tariqramadan_248084e" src="http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tariqramadan_248084e.jpg" alt="" width="448" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>Recently, Tariq Ramadan, considered by the Western intelligentsia to be the very epitome of enlightened Islamism, wrote a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">New York Times</span> op-ed in which he was not only allowed&#8211;among other total lies&#8211;to deny  that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and his grandfather, who then led  the group, were  Nazi collaborators before, during, and even after World  War Two. In fact, he dares claim&#8211;because he knows the mainstream media  will not expose this lie&#8211;that the Muslim Brotherhood was an  anti-fascist organization!</p>
<p><a href="http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/tariqs-tricks-how-wests-favorite.html">Here is my detailed discussion of Ramadan&#8217;s lies</a>.</p>
<p>I wrote a short but detailed letter to the newspaper on this point at  the urging of my readers but, not surprisingly, it went unpublished.  Meanwhile, a student at an elite American college wrote me how this  oped article was taught by his teacher as the absolute truth.</p>
<p>We have crossed the border into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone">&#8220;The Twilight Zone.&#8221;</a></p>
<p><span id="more-120778"></span>Dr. Wolfgang Schwanitz, probably the world&#8217;s leading authority on  Germany and the Middle East, and myself are writing a book entitled <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Germany, The Nazis, and the Making of the Modern Middle East</span> that will be published by Yale University Press next year.</p>
<p>The book will revolutionize people’s understanding of this issue. But  I’d like to present you with three draft paragraphs from the book—fully  documented by German documents—on the particular issue of the Muslim  Brotherhood and fascism.</p>
<p>Here’s the first one:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The Islamists of the Brotherhood were well-financed by the Germans,  both directly and through [Amin] al-Husaini [leader of the Palestinian  Arabs and a collaborator with the Germans]. Wilhelm Stellbogen, director  of the German News Bureau in Cairo, an Abwehr [German Military  Intelligence] man, and acting press attaché, paid sums of 1,000 Egyptian  pounds to them several times during 1939 alone. To put this sum into  perspective, the Brothers high-priority fund-raising effort for  Palestine netted only 500 pounds for that entire year. The mufti of  Jerusalem, leader of the Palestine Arabs Amin al-Husaini who was in  Berlin cooperating closely with Hitler, also supplied money through his  contacts in Cairo like Auni Abd al-Hadi, Muhammad Ali Tahir, and Sabri  Abd ad-Din.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Al-Husaini, with the Brotherhood’s cooperation, planned to kill all Jews  in the Middle East once the German army conquered the area. In  preparation, he sent three of his men to an SS course to learn about  mass extermination.</p>
<p>Here’s the second section:</p>
<blockquote><p>“On the evening of July 7, 1942, [when it seemed as if the German army  would soon conquer Cairo] the Voice of the Free Arabs [the station  controlled by Amin al-Husaini, mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the  Palestinian Arabs] broadcast to Egypt the following message:</p>
<p>&#8220;Kill the Jews who took your valuables….According to Islam it is a duty  to defend your lives. This can only be fulfilled by the liquidation of  the Jews. This is your best chance to get rid of this dirty race. Kill  the Jews! Set their possessions on fire! Demolish their shops! Liquidate  those evil helpers of British imperialism! Your only hope for rescue is  to annihilate the Jews before they do this to you.&#8221;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Muslim Brotherhood, along with the neo-fascist Young Egypt party,  had been given German weapons which an Arab commando team in the German  army had hidden in western Egypt. It was ready to spring into action to  murder Egyptian Jews and deliver the country to the Nazis. But it was  prevented from carrying out this plan by the British, who seized control  of Egypt in a virtual military coup at this moment. In addition, on the  very day this broadcast was made, the advance of General Erwin Rommel’s  forces was stopped.</p>
<p>But the Nazi weapons were used eventually. After the war, the  Brotherhood dug them up and used them to arm their forces sent to wipe  out Israel in the 1948 war. One of those in the unit&#8211;as was  demonstrated in my biography of Arafat&#8211;co-authored with Judith Colp  Rubin&#8211;<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography</span>, was Arafat himself.</p>
<p><em>Read the rest of this blog <a href="http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/jaccuse-new-york-times-is-complicit.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+Rubinreports+(RubinReports)">here</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/j%e2%80%99accuse-the-new-york-times-promotes-muslim-brotherhood-lies-covering-up-for-nazi-collaborators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What If They Gave a Revolution and No Regime Fell?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/what-if-they-gave-a-revolution-and-no-regime-fell/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-if-they-gave-a-revolution-and-no-regime-fell</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/what-if-they-gave-a-revolution-and-no-regime-fell/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Rubin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Right to Exist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[righttoexist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newsrealblog.com/?p=117569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The time has come to advance a new thesis. Since I was just about the first person anywhere to warn publicly that the Egyptian revolution wasn’t necessarily going to be a bed of roses, let me now suggest a daring idea that seems increasingly possible. I speak here as a political analyst and not as an advocate of any policy or outcome, neither cheering nor booing but merely observing.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a class="highslide" onclick="return vz.expand(this)" href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/pyramid1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-117572" title="pyramid" src="http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/pyramid1.jpg" alt="" width="488" height="318" /></a></p>
<p>&#8220;If you can keep your head when all about you<br />
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you&#8230;&#8221;<br />
&#8211;Rudyard Kipling, &#8220;If&#8221;</p>
<p>The time has come to advance a new thesis. Since I was just about the  first person anywhere to warn publicly that the Egyptian revolution  wasn’t necessarily going to be a bed of roses, let me now suggest a  daring idea that seems increasingly possible. I speak here as a  political analyst and not as an advocate of any policy or outcome,  neither cheering nor booing but merely observing.</p>
<p>What if the regime in Egypt doesn’t fall? What if it survives this  crisis, with a change of leader (inevitable given Husni Mubarak’s  advanced age), some reforms, and some concessions? What if the  revolution fizzles?</p>
<p>After all, by standing firm, the regime has kept the upheaval from  growing bigger and spreading farther. With the army at its side, the  regime does not have to surrender at all.</p>
<p><span id="more-117569"></span>In addition, this is not some one-man reign in a tiny Third World  country. The government is not the Mubarak regime but the  Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak regime, now approaching its sixtieth anniversary.  In addition, there is a huge bureaucracy, powerful economic interests,  and the entire military hierarchy tied to the regime. They are willing  to let Mubarak go but why should this huge sector give up its wealth,  power, and privileges when it doesn’t have to do so?</p>
<p>Moreover, let’s remember something rather important. Aside from  (well-deserved) fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is the broader  concern over anarchy and violence. If you are a member of this  political-economic-military elite, you could not only lose your job but  all your wealth and even your life. Who knows if the new rulers at some  point would start executing people?</p>
<p>I am certainly not saying that it&#8217;s all over nor am I suggesting anyone  should rejoice. A tragedy is a situation in which there is no easy way  out and perhaps no good way out at all. At any rate, the only thing that  really matters is what happens in Egypt itself. And that we will have  to watch to see. Nevertheless, a new variable must be considered:  non-revolution.</p>
<p>Of course, the Obama administration never should have thought the regime  would crumble like a house of cards. Threatened with the downfall of  them all (and not just Mubarak) they seem to have decided: let&#8217;s stick  together and outlast the demonstrators. Let people get tired of chaos,  ready to return to work, eager to have the army (which the opposition  keeps reminding people is beloved by the Egyptian people) restore order.</p>
<p>After all, the elite was never in love with the idea of having Husni’s  son, Gamal, take over. Many will say that this is the silver lining of  the revolutionary disorder. Indeed, it proves why he was incapable of  doing the job&#8211;running off, in contrast to his father&#8211;the moment things  got scary. Now, they figure, they can put someone relatively competent  into power.</p>
<p>Speaking of having someone competent in power, this brings us to the  question of U.S. policy. I can’t get the story of “Lord Jim,” the great  Joseph Conrad novel, out of my mind. The main character is a  professional sailor who is one of the officers aboard a broken-down  freighter carrying hundreds of poor Muslim pilgrims from the East Indies  to Mecca. The ship hits something and a storm is approaching. The crew  decide, without checking properly, that the ship is going to sink.  They  panic and take to the lifeboats, betraying their duty and leaving  the Muslims on board to die.</p>
<p>But the ship doesn’t sink at all and the passengers are rescued by a  passing naval vessel. The crew is put on trial and disgraced, losing  their licenses. The humiliated young man can only restore his honor by  acts of great bravery, which is the rest of the novel.</p>
<p>Within hours of the start of Egypt’s crisis, Barack Obama panicked and  took to the lifeboats or, to use the contemporary phrase, was ready to  throw the regime under the bus. Here, I’m not judging on a basis of  human rights, national interests, morality, or anything else: I’m just  stating a fact. In a world that, at least outside of Western Europe,  favors strong leaders, Obama came off as more Wayne Newton than John  Wayne. (continues after cartoon)</p>
<p>By Martin Berman-Gorvine special for Rubin Reports<br />
For comparison&#8217;s sake, here are some appropriate John Wayne quotes:</p>
<p>&#8220;A lot of guys make mistakes, I guess, but every one we make&#8230;and some  guy don&#8217;t walk away &#8211; forevermore, he don&#8217;t walk away.&#8221;  &#8211;&#8221;Sands of Iwo  Jima.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Well, there are some things a man just can&#8217;t run away from.&#8221; &#8211;&#8221;Stagecoach&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;This kind of war, you&#8217;ve gotta believe in what you&#8217;re fighting for.&#8221; &#8211;&#8221;Back to Bataan&#8221;</p>
<p>Now <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-Iran/">here&#8217;s Obama</a>,  at the height of the Iranian democratic demonstrations against a regime  far more brutal than Mubarak&#8217;s: &#8220;We are bearing witness to the Iranian  peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, you get the picture. Who do you want in your foxhole?</p>
<p>So how is Obama going to look if the ship stays afloat?</p>
<p>After all, this is an American government that a few days ago “ordered”  Egypt’s government to go, starting “now,” even starting “yesterday.” One  of several bad decisions was a failure to distinguish between Mubarak  and the regime. These people still don’t realize what they did wrong:</p>
<p>Privately counseling the Egyptian elite to get rid of Mubarak might well  have worked; publicly yelling at them to disband themselves was asking  them to commit suicide. Obviously, they were not likely to do so.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most interesting single sentence spoken by anyone during  this crisis was when Mubarak said that Obama doesn’t understand Arab  culture. What did he mean? Here’s my interpretation:</p>
<p>In Western society, you can compromise and make concessions so that your  opponent or potential partner says: What a great person! He’s so  reasonable. I, too, will make concessions and we will have a win-win  solution!</p>
<p>For decades naïve Westerners have been trying to apply this to the  Middle East. It doesn’t work. The more you concede the more the other  side concludes you are weak. The more you give, the more they take.  Appetite grows with the feeding.</p>
<p>And there&#8217;s more. If people think that the other side is stronger, is  winning, and you are losing credibility, more and more of them will join  that other side out of opportunism or survival.</p>
<p>This is precisely what&#8217;s happening in the Middle East. As the United  States apologizes and makes unilateral concessions, people are attracted  by Iran&#8217;s posing as the &#8220;strong horse,&#8221; ranting, roaring, threatening,  and killing. If you throw some of your friends under the bus (Lebanese  moderates, Iranian and Turkish oppositionists, Israel, southern Sudan?,  etc.), many others will get on the bus.</p>
<p>And the sign on the bus says: The Islamist express. On the back is a bumper sticker that says: We brake for terrorists.</p>
<p><em>Read the rest of this article <a href="http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-if-they-gave-revolution-and-no.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+Rubinreports+(RubinReports)">here</a>.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/barry-rubin/what-if-they-gave-a-revolution-and-no-regime-fell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Islamist Strategy in a Nutshell</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/barry-rubin/islamist-strategy-in-a-nutshell/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islamist-strategy-in-a-nutshell</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/barry-rubin/islamist-strategy-in-a-nutshell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Rubin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[collective punishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[course]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deterrence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hatred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hizballah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imperialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraqi insurgents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lenin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nationalists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parallel set]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=62281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The twisted and criminal rules by which our enemy plays -- and plans to destroy us.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/str.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-62351" title="str" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/str.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="306" /></a></p>
<p>In what follows, &#8220;we&#8221; represents such disparate forces as Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaida, Syria, the Taliban, and others including radical Arab nationalists and now Turkish Islamists. These forces are not all alike or allied but do often follow a parallel set of rules quite different from how international affairs have generally been conducted.</p>
<p>&#8211;We&#8217;ll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer we will keep attacking you. Since you can&#8217;t win you should give up.</p>
<p>&#8211;We&#8217;re indifferent to pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince. Neither does the carrot buy us off, nor does the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily nor make peace through diplomacy.</p>
<p>&#8211;If you set economic sanctions we&#8217;ll say you are starving our people in an act of &#8220;collective punishment.&#8221; Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits.</p>
<p>&#8211;In response to military operations we&#8217;ll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won&#8217;t care but will use this to persuade many that you are evil. Thus, we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned as human rights&#8217; violators.</p>
<p>&#8211;If you try to isolate us we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At times, we&#8217;ll hint at moderation and make promises of change. We won&#8217;t do so enough to alienate our own followers but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions for nothing real in exchange.</p>
<p>&#8211;Talking to our own people, we foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the &#8220;other,&#8221; and so on. These, of course, are our ideas but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology will make you not notice that fact.</p>
<p>&#8211;We will claim to be victims and &#8220;underdogs.&#8221; Because you are the stronger and more &#8220;advanced&#8221; that means you are the villains. We&#8217;re not held responsible for our deeds or expected to live up to the same standards. There is no shortage of, to quote Lenin, &#8220;useful idiots&#8221; who will echo our propaganda.</p>
<p>&#8211;Since our societies are weak, undemocratic, and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals with phoney moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened by corruption and incompetence.</p>
<p>&#8211;Even the less radical regimes, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure&#8211;plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings&#8211;they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel, and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizballah, and Hamas. They don&#8217;t struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits, as Lenin said selling us the rope to hang them as well as you.</p>
<p>&#8211;There&#8217;s no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There&#8217;s no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries. We will outlast you.</p>
<p>&#8211;Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don&#8217;t understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don&#8217;t comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary worldview means. In effect, we will try, and often succeed, to turn your &#8220;best and brightest&#8221; into the worst and dimmest who think you can persuade us, blame you for the conflicts, or expect that we will alter our course, and we will use those mistakes against you.</p>
<p>The above analysis seems pessimistic but actually is the opposite. Most of this strategy&#8217;s power is based on spreading illusions, depending on gullibility. Much of the rest relies on their enemies&#8217; psychological weaknesses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/barry-rubin/islamist-strategy-in-a-nutshell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 516/526 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 06:53:17 by W3 Total Cache -->