(The Egyptians, under U.S. pressure, subsequently withdrew their threat to recall the ambassador, but are insisting on an Israeli apology and on compensation for the families of the Egyptian dead—though they have said nothing about compensation for the families of Israel's dead, due to their own negligence.) The Egyptians were also miffed at Israeli criticism of Egypt's negligence in allowing the terrorist raid, launched from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, to take place.
FP: Remember that I predicted that apologizing to Islamists invites further demands? Well, even though Israel for now Israel has not apologized to Turkey, the sheer fact that Turkey demanded it and Israel considered it has almost automatically turned that into a routine for Islamists elsewhere. Expect more of that and pressure from the West to comply. The latter is yet another obstacle to Israel self-defense, which will become increasingly impossible.Note also that Israel apologizes now before it is even established that it has any reason to do so, so it should no wonder how it's treated by its enemies and the so-called international community.
Daniel Pipes: Libyan Blues
Many are ready to party about the political demise of the hated, eccentric, and foul Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi as rebel troops move into Tripoli. I am not partying. Here's why not.
The NATO intervention in March 2011 was done without due diligence as to who it is in Benghazi that it was helping. To this day, their identity is a mystery. Chances are good that Islamist forces are hiding behind more benign elements, waiting for the right moment to pounce, as roughly happened in Iran in 1978-79, when Islamists did not make clear their strength nor their program until the shah was well disposed of. Should that be the case in Libya today, then the miserable Qaddafi will prove to be better than his successors for both the Libyan subjects of tyranny and the West.
I hope I am wrong and the rebels are modern and liberal. But I fear that a dead-end despotism will be replaced by the agents of a worldwide ideological movement. I fear that Western forces will have brought civilization's worst enemies to power.
FP: It’s worse than that: as per my previous post, Obama has already committed even American aid to the rebels. But then the US has systematically brought Islamist to power and then in most cases funded what turned to be existential enemies: in Iran, Gaza, Egypt. The NATO intervention in March 2011 was done without due diligence as to who it is in Benghazi that it was helping. To this day, their identity is a mystery. Chances are good that Islamist forces are hiding behind more benign elements, waiting for the right moment to pounce, as roughly happened in Iran in 1978-79, when Islamists did not make clear their strength nor their program until the shah was well disposed of. Should that be the case in Libya today, then the miserable Qaddafi will prove to be better than his successors for both the Libyan subjects of tyranny and the West.
I hope I am wrong and the rebels are modern and liberal. But I fear that a dead-end despotism will be replaced by the agents of a worldwide ideological movement. I fear that Western forces will have brought civilization's worst enemies to power.
Barry Rubin: Libya: The Dictator Has Fallen! Long Live [Fill in the Blank]!
As NATO jets bombed the military positions of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, the watching rebels cheered, “Allah Akhbar!” Now that is a common Muslim expression, not just used by Islamists, and yet there is something symbolic about it. Allah did not bring the rebels victory, the United States and Europe did. Nevertheless, Allah will get the credit.
And that means the triumph will be attributed to the rebels’ piety rather than the West’s warplanes. In political terms, Islamism is likely to be more attractive than a pro-Western stance. But that doesn’t mean Libya will be an Islamist state; it merely means it won’t be a democratic, pro-Western one.
Of course, the key factor here is that nobody, including the Libyans, knows what’s going to happen there. There are multiple factors: regional (eastern versus western Libya); ethnic (Berbers and Arabs); ideological; factional; personal; and recent defectors from Gaddafi’s regime versus rebels. The stakes in loot and oil money are high.
There has been no change in Libya’s social make-up. The rebels have looted, burned, and killed civilians, with a special animus toward black Africans, a group identified with Gaddafi’s regime by the rebels.
Thus, the prospects for violence and internal disorder are tremendous.
Of course, Gaddafi is one of the world’s worst dictators. The same, albeit with somewhat less justice, was said of the shah of Iran and President Mubarak of Egypt. With equal justice it was said of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The determinant of how things will work out, however, does not depend on the evilness of the dictator but the goodness — in competence, unity, tolerance, and moderation — of those who overthrew him.
Certainly, I’d like to see Libya as a happy, democratic, prospering country. But one has to analyze the facts. There is no reason to believe in a great outcome. At best, a regime might come into existence that maintains stability, reduces repression, and spends some of the oil income for the benefit of its people.
FP: Simply logic, rather than wishful thinking.
And that means the triumph will be attributed to the rebels’ piety rather than the West’s warplanes. In political terms, Islamism is likely to be more attractive than a pro-Western stance. But that doesn’t mean Libya will be an Islamist state; it merely means it won’t be a democratic, pro-Western one.
Of course, the key factor here is that nobody, including the Libyans, knows what’s going to happen there. There are multiple factors: regional (eastern versus western Libya); ethnic (Berbers and Arabs); ideological; factional; personal; and recent defectors from Gaddafi’s regime versus rebels. The stakes in loot and oil money are high.
There has been no change in Libya’s social make-up. The rebels have looted, burned, and killed civilians, with a special animus toward black Africans, a group identified with Gaddafi’s regime by the rebels.
Thus, the prospects for violence and internal disorder are tremendous.
Of course, Gaddafi is one of the world’s worst dictators. The same, albeit with somewhat less justice, was said of the shah of Iran and President Mubarak of Egypt. With equal justice it was said of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The determinant of how things will work out, however, does not depend on the evilness of the dictator but the goodness — in competence, unity, tolerance, and moderation — of those who overthrew him.
Certainly, I’d like to see Libya as a happy, democratic, prospering country. But one has to analyze the facts. There is no reason to believe in a great outcome. At best, a regime might come into existence that maintains stability, reduces repression, and spends some of the oil income for the benefit of its people.
No comments:
Post a Comment