When Arabs holler victory, horselaughs resonate across the planet.
The reason for this is that, in general, Arab reasoning, mentality and mindset are radically different from those bestowed upon the rest of the species.
So the world is now laughing at the sight of Hamas aficionados celebrating electoral “victory”. Obviously, Palestinians learned nothing from the lessons afforded by a century-long string of defeats.
Those who won the elections in the Palestinian agglomerates within Israel are the political heirs of defunct movements that had embraced all-or-nothing attitudes.
Israel’s leaders have always instigated these attitudes, as their motto seems to be: if it comes down to choosing between all or nothing, let the Palestinians get the nothing and we get the rest. That is why it has always been vital to Israel that the Palestinian side should always include in its ranks a virulent all-or-nothing faction. At historic junctures in the conflict, Israeli strings would prop up that faction to the front stage. And it so happens that at these junctures Israel has invariably been faced with the difficult all-or-nothing choice, and has invariably chosen the "all" option.
In the past, when Palestinians hollered victory, Israelis rejoiced.
But this time around, the Palestinians outsmarted the Israelis: they lost their State, but they won the elections in return.
Who should worry about Iran’s bid to go nuclear
The advent of a new member to the nuclear club should be a cause for global concern irrespective of the newcomer’s race, color or creed. Unlike Philip Bowring, I would be worried if Iran were to acquire the bomb and just as worried if Lichtenstein were to do the same. I would even be worried if the Order of Mother Theresa were to go nuclear.
That’s in principle, and principles do not loathe exaggerations.
In practice, fear comes from the fact that countries acquire nuclear weapons for offensive purposes – to threaten and/or attack their enemy, or for defense – to dissuade an enemy and/or retaliate.
What’s obviously frightening is that attack and retaliation would both occur on this planet, and collateral damage would be both inevitable and devastating.
What’s less obvious but just as frightening is that the line between offensive and defensive moves in this game remains blurred at best, and non-existent when expediency dictates it. In a nutshell, there are no rules of engagement for the deadliest game mankind has so far invented. Here are a few points to ponder:
Was French President Chirac threatening to use nuclear force or was he trying to dissuade (supposed) terrorists from attacking France? Subsequently, will his contingent use of the bomb be deemed an attack or retaliation?
What should trigger nuclear response?
A terrorist attack? September 11 didn’t.
A terrorist attack with WMD? Who remembers anthrax?
The threat of a terrorist attack with WMD? Go hit the nebulous Syndicate. Who remembers Tora Bora?
Words – no matter how caustic or threatening – have not triggered The Deflagration in the past.
Yet another source of concern would emerge should Iran join the nuclear club.
With more radiation at its disposal, Iran’s revolutionary fervor could radiate more radiantly than ever. That should trouble rhetoric-sensitive ideologists. What worries the rest of us is that the radius of influence of an Iran-gone-nuclear will surely expand to encroach upon oil-rich expanses in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia that the U.S. deems to be vital to its interests.
The knee-jerk U.S. reaction would be to mount a preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear installations.
But we’ve grown out of these reactions, now haven’t we?
A more reasoned, and certainly more rewarding reaction would be to circle the wagons in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia, under U.S. command of course, in order to countervail the (very convenient) Iranian threat.
Now I would expect European decision-makers to be worried stiff, and it so happens they are.
That’s in principle, and principles do not loathe exaggerations.
In practice, fear comes from the fact that countries acquire nuclear weapons for offensive purposes – to threaten and/or attack their enemy, or for defense – to dissuade an enemy and/or retaliate.
What’s obviously frightening is that attack and retaliation would both occur on this planet, and collateral damage would be both inevitable and devastating.
What’s less obvious but just as frightening is that the line between offensive and defensive moves in this game remains blurred at best, and non-existent when expediency dictates it. In a nutshell, there are no rules of engagement for the deadliest game mankind has so far invented. Here are a few points to ponder:
Was French President Chirac threatening to use nuclear force or was he trying to dissuade (supposed) terrorists from attacking France? Subsequently, will his contingent use of the bomb be deemed an attack or retaliation?
What should trigger nuclear response?
A terrorist attack? September 11 didn’t.
A terrorist attack with WMD? Who remembers anthrax?
The threat of a terrorist attack with WMD? Go hit the nebulous Syndicate. Who remembers Tora Bora?
Words – no matter how caustic or threatening – have not triggered The Deflagration in the past.
Yet another source of concern would emerge should Iran join the nuclear club.
With more radiation at its disposal, Iran’s revolutionary fervor could radiate more radiantly than ever. That should trouble rhetoric-sensitive ideologists. What worries the rest of us is that the radius of influence of an Iran-gone-nuclear will surely expand to encroach upon oil-rich expanses in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia that the U.S. deems to be vital to its interests.
The knee-jerk U.S. reaction would be to mount a preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear installations.
But we’ve grown out of these reactions, now haven’t we?
A more reasoned, and certainly more rewarding reaction would be to circle the wagons in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia, under U.S. command of course, in order to countervail the (very convenient) Iranian threat.
Now I would expect European decision-makers to be worried stiff, and it so happens they are.
The high aims of a VP
I found the revelations of former Syrian Vice President Khaddam instructive in that they offered a glimpse of the intricate power play within the hidden workings of a dictatorship.
A number of observations seem pertinent in this context:
1. A dictatorship need not necessarily induce regression, social and economic, but freedoms and democracy are mightier inspirers of progress.
2. A dictatorship need not necessarily foster injustice, but it definitely lacks the scruples to eschew the temptation of persecuting its enemies.
3. A dictatorship need not necessarily breed corruption, but its stalwart supporters need to be bribed with fiefdoms in business and government.
4. A dictatorship need not necessarily be totalitarian, but its paranoia will make the slippage toward totalitarianism almost inevitable.
5. A dictatorship may opt for an ostensibly secular State and society, but it will not hesitate to unearth sectarian fault lines if its interests and/or survival demand it.
6. A dictatorship, however, wouldn’t be one if it were tolerant to any degree. Intolerance is indeed the hallmark of dictatorship, its defining attribute, its historical essence.
Contrary to the image of power and fortitude he strives to project, a dictator perceives his seat of authority to be vulnerable, rickety and in constant need of reinforcement. To tolerate dissent or criticism, or what’s worse opposition, would serve him a one-two punch. It would encourage more dissent and opposition that aggravate his self-doubt and are in turn heightened by it. As the vicious circle closes, a dictator’s responses become openly vicious.
These observations provide a rational explanation as to why the VP’s revelations – soft-spoken and apparently benign – have unleashed the wrath of the regime.
On each of the above counts, the VP challenged the P and thrust him toward the bad spot.
The tale of the super VP shows him as having undertaken single-handedly all of the following:
- he championed the cause of democratic reforms (yes! you heard him right) in the party and the government,
- he advocated the rule of law (he retained a serious countenance when he said this),
- he demanded that corruption be eradicated (don't worry, your hearing is still good),
- he deplored social injustice and the state of the economy,
- he pressed for more freedoms (no, your TV set didn’t flip channels at that very moment),
- he called for national dialogue that would include all political factions and made a plain overture to the opposition,
- he advised the P on the course of foreign policy that would best serve the interests of the country,
- he faulted the P for using undiplomatic speech with Lebanese politicians, and got him to admit the gaffe and backtrack (yes, you got it right again and no, you were not drowsing when that bit of the interview hit the air).
Now that’s serious because such a tale depicts the VP, rather than the P, as the omniscient, reformist, visionary, intelligent, compassionate, just, honest, and courageous leader the country deserves to have.
In a regime where the job of a VP doesn’t involve taking over when the P is incapacitated or dead, to appear to be angling for the post of Supreme Leader is unpardonable.
A number of observations seem pertinent in this context:
1. A dictatorship need not necessarily induce regression, social and economic, but freedoms and democracy are mightier inspirers of progress.
2. A dictatorship need not necessarily foster injustice, but it definitely lacks the scruples to eschew the temptation of persecuting its enemies.
3. A dictatorship need not necessarily breed corruption, but its stalwart supporters need to be bribed with fiefdoms in business and government.
4. A dictatorship need not necessarily be totalitarian, but its paranoia will make the slippage toward totalitarianism almost inevitable.
5. A dictatorship may opt for an ostensibly secular State and society, but it will not hesitate to unearth sectarian fault lines if its interests and/or survival demand it.
6. A dictatorship, however, wouldn’t be one if it were tolerant to any degree. Intolerance is indeed the hallmark of dictatorship, its defining attribute, its historical essence.
Contrary to the image of power and fortitude he strives to project, a dictator perceives his seat of authority to be vulnerable, rickety and in constant need of reinforcement. To tolerate dissent or criticism, or what’s worse opposition, would serve him a one-two punch. It would encourage more dissent and opposition that aggravate his self-doubt and are in turn heightened by it. As the vicious circle closes, a dictator’s responses become openly vicious.
These observations provide a rational explanation as to why the VP’s revelations – soft-spoken and apparently benign – have unleashed the wrath of the regime.
On each of the above counts, the VP challenged the P and thrust him toward the bad spot.
The tale of the super VP shows him as having undertaken single-handedly all of the following:
- he championed the cause of democratic reforms (yes! you heard him right) in the party and the government,
- he advocated the rule of law (he retained a serious countenance when he said this),
- he demanded that corruption be eradicated (don't worry, your hearing is still good),
- he deplored social injustice and the state of the economy,
- he pressed for more freedoms (no, your TV set didn’t flip channels at that very moment),
- he called for national dialogue that would include all political factions and made a plain overture to the opposition,
- he advised the P on the course of foreign policy that would best serve the interests of the country,
- he faulted the P for using undiplomatic speech with Lebanese politicians, and got him to admit the gaffe and backtrack (yes, you got it right again and no, you were not drowsing when that bit of the interview hit the air).
Now that’s serious because such a tale depicts the VP, rather than the P, as the omniscient, reformist, visionary, intelligent, compassionate, just, honest, and courageous leader the country deserves to have.
In a regime where the job of a VP doesn’t involve taking over when the P is incapacitated or dead, to appear to be angling for the post of Supreme Leader is unpardonable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)