Marc Lynch spoke at the plenary session of the Soref Symposium, the annual spring conference of Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the future of public diplomacy and the "war of ideas" in the Obama administration. (God bless WINEP for diversity.) Some of what he said, posted on FP:
"…My remarks contrasted sharply with the vision outlined by General
Michael Herzog (Ehud Barak's chief of staff at the Israeli Ministry of
Defense) in the plenary session. Herzog offered this graphic, if
familiar, imagery: Iran is the head, Syria the body, and Hamas and
Hezbollah the two arms reaching out to strangle Israel. I countered
that this conflation of different challenges was misleading, dangerous,
and unhelpful. Hamas and Hezbollah are two of the most popular forces
in the Arab world — why "give" them to Iran? Treat Hezbollah as a
Lebanese issue, Hamas as a Palestinian issue, and resolve them on their
own terms. Address Syria's national interests in a direct dialogue. And
engage with Iran seriously, not just as a show before getting on to
sanctions or military confrontation…"
Believing that Arabs would rally to the side of Israel against Iran –
especially without any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue — is
wishful thinking of the highest (and most strategically dangerous)
order. The lessons of the last few years should be that the better
approach is to take away the appeal of "resistance" by reframing the
confrontation, disaggregating the challenge, and dealing pragmatically
with the political issues rather than engaging in rhetorical wars of
ideas.
[From Friday Lunch Club, Journal of Prickly and Lame Writings and Thoughts on the Middle East (fabulous site-name, I'm jealous)]
The Arab Street, like the American Street, have no present leader or leader agency. American & Israeli foreign policy. take full advantage of this, and at full expense of both Streets. Both Streets are kept ill-informed, subjected to constant fear tactics and propaganda. The Arab nations are simple proxy elite tyrannies. EU, Russia, China, India, S. America, are basically side-lined, scrambling to get as get can under the table. For now. History shows this state of international affairs will not last forever. Is Obama up to the challenge? No future American president will get such a political mandate for real change.
And engage with Iran seriously… What's to "engage" with? Iran just wants to be left alone to get on with the pursuit of its national and regional interests, like any other medium-sized regional power. I'm not being sarcastic; I really mean it.
He needs to take a page from the Lobby and try to institutionalize the changes so they are harder to reverse if (God forbid) we ever have a neocon-traitor dominated president again.
(1) establishment of an embassy (2) normalization of trade and travel (3) diplomatic efforts, including military-to-military contacts, to prevent misunderstandings that might lead to war, e.g. agreement of territorial water boundaries, notification of exercises, etc … things we do for many other countries (4) cooperation against Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists
You mean, al-CIA-duh.
when there is no more internet and we all live back in the 17th century due to the nwo trying its damdest to take over but fail completely. how will the people write and stay in contact with the fluent people whom do not like to commit or support genocide?
I'm with Rowan Berkeley on this take. I don't buy the old Arendt thesis grafted with the new "third way" total evil replacement, "Islamo-Facism." Totalitarianism? Facism (race & nation) was defeated by war. Communism (class warfare) by the inefficient weight of central planning. So, what is the real playing board today? Something grayer. Unbridled capitalism, like the USA problem trying to be finessed today? China? The opposite finessing of central planning with limited capitalism? Obama moves left, China moves right. The global economy and technology, especially the internet, permeates the old absolutes. The whole world is like the USA internal politics writ large–a lot of folks do not see either the Democrats or the Republicans as having the answers, the roles of Independent gain daily in the USA. The are the swing vote every time. Eight years of Bush, a groundswell to change course to Obama… Enough to put a black man in the highest office. In the USA, the only thing not bipartisan is Israel First–yet this blog indicates even this is slowly changing… Historically, the rise of Nazism was due in good part to (1) the injustice of Versailles in the face of Wilson, and (2) fear of Communism. Both loom gigantic if you know 20th Century macro-history. What does it come down to? The simple question, am I my brother's keeper? This leads to the question, who's my brother? Charity versus forced transfer of wealth? Where does RowanBerkeley's view of Iran fit in here? Where the Benthemite view of majority good? Especially when the only super-power has a Bill Of Rights protecting the minority? And when its special ally avoids same at all costs? Beneath it all, given the power of money and natural resources uber alles, where are we for a working model of what we are dealing with, one that is not grossly misrepresentative of the aggregate complex of factors affecting us most deeply? I'm not thinking religion. We are aware Americans have recently been introduced to the simple fact we cannot hog the world's resources forever. Within the USA itself, the endless trend of the widening income and asset gap is being held up to the mirror for public notice. The Third World is in our own country too. So, where is Iran? Exactly where RowanBerkeley says it is. Not that that will stop it from getting bombed before 2010 is over unless Obama gets on the stick. Elite goy entitlement partnering with Jewish moneybags at the service of super-paranoid Israel equals Iran=Hitler.
The USA doesn't respect tha t the Golan Heights is owned by Syria.If it were returned by Israel the Syrian regime would be forced to change. The same applies to the sovereignty-related demands of Hizbollah and the Palestinians. Why can't the USA respect the states around Israel? If the sovereignty-related issues were addressed there would be fewer non-state actors. Lebanon is not a failed state like Somalia. There should be more support for whoever wins their next election be it a Hizbollah/Aoun led coalition or a pro Hariri one.