Globally Rational

You are browsing the archives of Middle East.

This is another in my set of “Sunday Rewinds”, where I re-post one of my favorite articles that I wrote back when nobody was reading. FYI, the status of North Korea has changed a little bit since I first wrote the article.

Wikipedia defines “terrorism” as “violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.” Here are some examples of accepted terrorist organizations:

• —Al-Qaeda, for obvious reasons.
• —The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which conducts violent attacks in an attempt to promote the independence of Northern Ireland from the UK.
• —Hamas, a political party that is said to sponsor violence against Israel.
• —Khmer Rouge, a violent Communist group that controlled Cambodia for part of the 1970s.
• —The Ku Klux Klan, which is responsible for ethnic/racial violence in the US.

Anyway, you get the point. But what about state-sponsored terrorism? We spent a lot of time, resources, and money fighting many of the small groups: for instance, we fought al-Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge directly (with heavy casualties) and we fought Hamas by supplying money and weapons to their targets. Meanwhile, we ignore state-sponsored issues:

• —China’s atrocities against Tibetans speak for themselves, but China is still hosting the Olympics and is still one of our biggest trading partners. They also don’t let the local media tell their residents about the violence, while the Great Firewall of China prevents any Chinese residents from accessing international news.
• —North Korea is as dangerous as ever and, unlike al-Qaeda and Iraq, they have weapons of mass destruction. We seem to just ignore them.
• —Israel still continues to kill far more Palestinian civilians than vice versa. Why do we continue to pay for them to do it?
• —We ignore state-sponsored terrorism in countries like Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea, but we are all over it every time it touches Yugoslavia. My guess is that it’s because it’s much easier for white America to be sympathetic with white Yugoslavia. It’s also interesting that the news never mentions that the terrorism in Yugoslavia was primarily non-Muslims killing Muslims, but they always mention religion when Muslims kill non-Muslims. The same thing happens in Israel… it’s never “Jews killing Muslims”, but you hear a lot about “Muslims killing Jews/Israelis”, even though the former is much more common than the latter.
• —And, of course, there are the allegations of US sponsorship of terrorism, which seem to be irrefutable. Take a look at the link.

It’s hard to make a conclusion with such a small data set… but it’s good food for thought. This tells you a lot about how the US, as a nation, feels about various groups. We tend to ignore all evidence that is contrary to whatever issue it is that we want to support. We want to support China, so the Tibetans are irrelevant and the Olympics will continue. We want to support Yugoslavia, so we make Rwanda less important (the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was very efficient and took care of the issues… the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, on the other hand, has accomplished almost nothing). I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t help Israel or Yugoslavia… but I think we should find a way to help Tibet and Rwanda at the same time instead of discriminating heavily in favor of one or the other.

Leave a comment and tell me what you think about this one. There are many possible explanations and conclusions, and I think we’d all like to see different opinions.

Popularity: 38% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 38% [?]

Yesterday, I outlined the best possible sequence of events that could follow from Israel’s recent prisoner exchange with Hezbollah. The best-case scenario required some forward thinking from the educated part of the population, which would (hopefully) eventually start to promote tolerance. However, here is what will happen if even the educated people let their emotions supersede their rationality (which seems pretty common for enemies):

• May/June 2008: Israel works out a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah (done).
• The next few months: The public, both Israelis and Palestinians, openly resent that their side is negotiating with the enemy.
• The next year or two: Public resentment makes it more difficult for politicians to justify any sort of communication between the two sides.
• The next 3-4 years: Violence continues as usual and open political talks become a distant memory. Public opinion remains irrationally heated.
• The next decade or so: Communication is impossible; each side’s general public sentiment is that the other side needs to be simply eradicated.
• Another 10-20 years later: One of the two sides achieves its goal of killing enough people so that the enemy is forced to abandon their homes.

Of course, we don’t want this scenario to come true. Whoever wins, the end result is bad. That’s why I think that the only solution to the problem is through education… Americans need to be educated about the world, locals need to be educated about tolerance, and everybody needs to learn that it’s really not that hard to live in harmony.

Popularity: 79% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 79% [?]

I think we can all agree that the best possible solution to the Israel problem would be something that involves minimal violence and casualties.  So here is what I’m expecting (as promised in yesterday’s post):

Best-case (realistic)

• May/June 2008: Israel works out a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah (done).
• The next few months: the first exchange gives way to more exchanges.
• The next year or two: more exchanges lead to semi-open talks between Israel and Palestinian groups.
• The next 3-4 years: Semi-open talks slowly evolve into open talks.
• The next decade or so: Open political talks eventually become accepted by the public, which means that they automatically hate each other a little bit less.
• Another 5-10 years later: As the hatred fades, some educated Israelis and Palestinians begin to live in the same areas without killing each other.
• Hopefully, as the more educated people start to live in harmony, this sentiment trickles down to the rest of the public.

Of course, plenty of people will want to say that “the Israelis should all just get out of the Middle East” or “the Palestinians should just go somewhere else”, but I think we can all agree that such an evacuation is highly unlikely.  Tomorrow, I’ll talk about the worst-case scenario.

Popularity: 75% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 75% [?]

Until recently, Israel has been adamant about not negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah; they went so far as to condemn Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas leaders. George W. Bush even visited Israel a couple of weeks ago to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their statehood (which many Palestinians considered a slap in the face because that day was also the 60th anniversary of the day that they were forced to leave their homes). But recently, in a move that is almost shocking to me, Israel actually decided to swap prisoners with Hezbollah.

I think this is a step in the right direction. As I have written once before, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the only way to reach a permanent solution is to achieve a peaceful solution. If the Israelis and the Palestinians continue to kill each other, then the war will go on until one side or the other is extinct (which can’t happen as long as the US supports Israel and the Arabs outnumber the Israelis). But once the doors are open to peaceful talks, the angry population will slowly cool down until they reach the point where they can live together peacefully.

Tomorrow I’ll predict the best-case and worst-case scenarios (and maybe one in between).

EDIT: Here are the next two posts, also of interest
Click here for the best-case scenario
Click here for the worst-case scenario

Popularity: 79% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 79% [?]

Many of my friends are young/uneducated enough so that they still work (miserably) at fast food restaurants or other low-paying unrewarding locations. But today, after reading that yet another top-ranking al Qaeda official has been arrested, I think I’ve decided what the world’s worst job is.

I’m sure that Abu Ayyub al-Masri was very proud of his prestigious position within the ranks of a right-wing religious group. But I wonder what went through his head when he found out that he was about to become the head of the organization. He knew that this meant an automatic place at the top of the FBI’s Most Wanted list, and he knew that his fate was unlikely to be much different from that of Abu Zubaydah (captured in 2002), Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (captured in 2003), Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in 2005), and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed in 2006). I can’t imagine how depressing it must be to constantly have to look over your shoulder until, one day, you end up just being caught. We actually heard reports about his possible death about a year ago… how do you think it would feel to have people rejoicing at your death? Is he proud? Is he depressed?

He must have known what was coming to him, as did everybody around him. I wonder if, knowing what the future holds, anybody ever turns down positions like this one. Was al-Masri the top candidate or did he just get the job because some other guy didn’t want to deal with the stress? Now that he’s caught, does that mean that others will be “applying” for the job or will somebody be forced to become a de facto leader? And, most importantly, now that coalition forces have caught another top-ranking al-Qaeda leader, does this mean that the war might finally be ending?

Interestingly enough, today is also the 5th anniversary of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech.

Popularity: 41% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 41% [?]

Today, Israeli forces attacked a Hamas leader’s house and killed his 14-year old daughter, among other civilians. This is a few days after Hamas offered Israel a 6-month cease-fire, which Israel is planning on rejecting because they don’t want to talk to Hamas. What I’d like to know is this: what exactly is Israel trying to accomplish by promoting this violence?

Anybody can tell you that the right way to deal with a fundamentalist organization is not to provoke them further. When you reject a cease-fire and then go and attack the leader, how do you expect to really manage the negative sentiment? It’s starting to seem like Israel’s goal is just to eliminate all of the Palestinians rather than to come up with a peaceful solution. This seems to be the best political move for somebody looking for votes from the Israeli population; the hardline attitude must be popular, since it’s definitely prevailing.

I know that Hamas said that they intend to end Israel permanently, so the Israelis probably aren’t too happy about that. But will it really help solve the problem if they provoke more violence? They won’t be able to eliminate the Arabs entirely, so how is it helping them to increase the hatred? The only way to solve the problem is to promote peace in the next generations, and this is definitely not the way to do it.

I guess that promoting peace isn’t the best political move. As long as Israel has American support, they have the ability to flex their muscles throughout the Middle East… so why not do it?

Popularity: 79% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 79% [?]

Many people in the US say that you should “support our troops” so that they don’t have to use a more controversial phrase like “support the war.” This leads to a sort of emotional connection between a person and the war in Iraq, and we tend to think something along the lines of “well, I don’t have anything against the troops, so I guess I should support the war effort.” Somehow, this causes people to believe that the best way to “support the troops” is to send them on another tour of duty in Iraq.

Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I heard somebody concern themselves with the well-being of the troops in Iraq. The suicide rates among these soldiers is abysmal, but people still somehow think that “supporting the troops” means that we should keep them there. Depression is rampant and repeated tours of duty (partially thanks to the Stop-Loss program, which keeps soldiers in Iraq past the date when they were promised that they could leave) are breaking up young families. And today, I saw a report that actually suprised me… it hasn’t been proven yet, but apparently, some of the soldiers are being fed improperly.

Apparently, some people believe that “support our troops” means “send our most patriotic young citizens to be depressed, lose their family, and possibly commit suicide while keeping them underfed”.

Popularity: 90% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 90% [?]

People often tell me that Muslims deserve the treatment they get because we tend to produce more extremists than other religions. Let’s disregard all other factors (for example, the fact that Christian extremists have been common in the past, just not today) and take a look at one of the many incidences where a Jewish rabbi calls for extremist action. I don’t have a problem with every Israeli just because a few of them call for atrocities… so why do people have a problem with all Arabs just because a few of them do the same?

Popularity: 56% [?]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has literally threatened to punch the West in the face if they don’t stop pestering him about his nuclear program. His rhetoric has to be some of the most self-destructive that I’ve ever heard (if you don’t believe me, watch what he said when he spoke at Columbia University)… I think he tries to make himself look like an idiot:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSHAF95777720080409

On top of that, here’s something you probably didn’t know: Most Shi’a Muslims, which make up almost all of Iran’s population, consider their top religious leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) to be the final authority on everything; even according to the Iranian constitution, he has more actual power than Ahmadinejad (including control over the military). Khamenei has proclaimed that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons. If he lied, that would compromise his religious status and he would lose all of their power, so he must not know about the nuclear weapons. That means that Ahmadinejad must be lying to Khamenei, which is another suicidal idea.

Iran is probably producing nuclear weapons, I won’t deny that. They’re enriching their uranium far too extensively to say that they’ll just be using it for power. The question is why Ahmadinejad is trying to hide it… everybody will find out when he gets the weapons anyway (not to mention that we already know about it).

I think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might have a mental disability that causes him to be self-destructive. He just does stupid stuff all the time without worrying about what the world will do to him. Can he really be that bad of a decision-maker?

Popularity: 12% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 12% [?]

For the past year, my driving record has been clean and my insurance rates are about to go down. So you can imagine how I felt when a police officer lowered his window and tried to get my attention at a red light today. I didn’t know if one of my tail lights was our or if the cop just saw me take my eyes off the road when I made a phone call, but the last thing I wanted was another ticket to add to my less-than-spectacular record.

I rolled down my window and got my answer. “Where did you get those rims?”
I exhaled. “I bought them online… they’re called TSW Kyalami.”
“Oh OK… they’d look good on my A6; how big are they?”
“19 inches. I’m actually selling them soon… do you want my number?”

We pulled into a parking lot and exchanged information. It was all pretty straightforward; he said he’d talk to his wife and get back to me (which he probably won’t). But it got me thinking: why do we always have to be so worried about law enforcement?

Of all the cities I’ve visited, the traffic law is most efficient in Kuwait. They have cameras and radar sensors on the streets, so people are afraid to drive too fast. Also, all cars in Kuwait make an annoying beeping noise at 120 km/hr (75 mph, the speed limit on the highway). There is a lot of reckless driving, but nobody does anything that would warrant law enforcement action.

In Pakistan, on the other hand, you can do anything you want on the road without much fear of consequences. If you do get pulled over, you can pay off the cop easily. On the other hand, if they don’t like you for some reason, you can expect to be beaten unless you want to pay them well. But people still don’t worry when they see cops, since they know that the law is irrelevant… the cops won’t bother you unless you’re getting in their way.

We have a balance between the two systems here. But Kuwait has no crime (probably because their law enforcement can focus on real crime instead of trying to make money by giving tickets) and Pakistan has astronomical crime… we also have a balance between those two results. Maybe we could stand to learn something from the countries that are doing it right. We can’t implement the exact same system (Kuwait is much smaller than the US… although we might be able to do it state-by-state), but it might be helpful to spend some money on radar technology next year instead of signing another contract with Ford for a bunch of new Crown Victorias.

Popularity: 13% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 13% [?]