Iran threatens Israel if US intervenes in Syria

From Al Arabiya:

Any crisis caused by a military intervention in Syria would engulf Israel, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani warned Wednesday, the Tehran Times reported on Thursday.

Larijani made the remarks in reference to calls by certain U.S. officials for a military campaign against Syria to put an end to Syrian regime's 14-month assault on its opposition.

'U.S. military officials probably have a poor understanding of themselves and regional issues because Syria is in no way similar to Libya, and (the effects of) creating another Benghazi in Syria would spread to Palestine, and ash rising from the flames would definitely envelop the Zionist regime,' Larijani said, according to the newspaper.

'It seems that the United States and the West are seeking to pave the way for a new crisis,' he added.

The only conceivable way that Israel would be dragged into the Syrian conflict is if Iran, through its Hezbollah and Syrian proxies, attacks. Which means that this warning is really a threat.

And while on the subject:

Iran, meanwhile, has recently blamed Israel for the violence in Syria, saying Jerusalem is deliberately sabotaging the Annan peace plan.

Speaking at a weekly press conference, Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast stated: 'Any crime committed (in Syria) can be traced back to the (Israeli) regime's hirelings,' Iran's semi-official FARS news agency reported on Tuesday.

Thus creating the fiction to create the situation that Larijani describes.

Documentary exposing the impotence of the UN coming tomorrow

This looks great:



From an interview with the filmmaker, Ami Horowitz:

Many conservatives in the United States are critical of the U.N. because they believe it threatens U.S. national sovereignty. Many progressives would be livid at some of the corruption you expose in your film. Which of these two broad groups (and I realize we're dealing with generalizations and labels here) would you say U.N. Me has resonated with the most? Do you think this could be an issue where concerned Americans can unite across the partisan divide in support of substantive solutions?

Horowitz: I knew that conservatives were going to be attracted to this movie. That was the basis of our entire model. It was the liberals that were going to be the wild card. At first, the working assumption was that they would reject the movie as conservative claptrap. But once we began screenings, the opposite was true. Liberals began to change their entire viewpoint on the United Nations after seeing the movie. The only distinction between conservatives and liberals, was that liberals were so outraged by what they saw on screen, the humor got in their way. Conservatives, on the other hand, were aware of many of the issues that we discussed, so they were able to enjoy the humor far more.

Has any general ideological group, or specific individual or organization been especially hostile to the message in your film?

Horowitz: I find that Europeans generally are particularly hostile to the movie. They find the idea of a moral high ground to be an obnoxious thought. They also find that preaching against a particular ideology, for instance radical Islam, is dubious, possibly even racist. Their moral compass has been broken for years. They find that my focus on corruption and wastefulness borders on greediness.

You've got a gutsy, humorous approach to documentary-making, especially as highlighted by some of the segments in your trailer. I see shades of Michael Moore in places (in a good way' referring to his dead-pan humor and sense of irony, not some of his deceptive editing practices). Who are your influences and inspirations when it comes to documentary-making?

Horowitz: Obviously I am influenced by Michael Moore. Say what you will about his politics, he has taken the staid documentary genre and turned it on its head. Sasha Baron Cohen, who is not, strictly speaking, a documentary filmmaker, has an interview technique that I have emulated in many ways. I was so enamored with both of their styles, that I hired much of their teams.

(h/t EBoZ)

Jewish philosopher takes credit for Libya intervention; Arabs believe him

From Variety:

Followers of global politics will be surprised to learn that Bernard-Henri Levy is responsible for the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi, but that's the story Levy tells in "The Oath of Tobruk," co-helmed with Marc Roussel. Levy is France's media star philosopher, a peculiarly Gallic creation whose immaculate tailoring and savvy self-promotion make him the darling of celeb rags and higher institutions. With "Tobruk," he's finally been subsumed by his own ego, placing himself front and center of Libya's revolution and barely acknowledging other forces. Such self-aggrandizement will play to only acolytes at home.

[H]is nonstop theatricalized narration, interminable use of the first person, and treatment of the Libyan desert as little more than a "GQ" fashion shoot with himself as model don't make for a sympathetic portrait. Nor together do they say much about the real nature of Gaddafi's defeat.

BHL entered Libya in March 2011 together with sidekick Gilles Hertzog (Ed McMahon to Levy's Johnny Carson). His appearance was informed by 20 years of guilt, when his cry for intervention in Bosnia (the subject of his 1994 docu "Bosna") went largely unheeded. Convinced that the West must intervene in Libya, he crisscrossed the globe, using his access to the halls of power to spur leaders into military action.

According to "Tobruk," that's pretty much all it took. Interviews with Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Hillary Clinton and others are edited to reflect BHL's importance and glory, while scenes of adulatory crowds cheering him in Benghazi testify to his skills in selling himself as the embodiment of First World action. The chaotic nature of the opposition is nowhere seen, and there's little sense of what was happening on the battlefields.

I admit to being confused as to how philosophy and self-promotion are in harmony.

At any rate, if a self-absorbed Jewish figure says that he is the reason Western powers decided to act in Libya, the Arabs are more than happy to believe him.

Al Manar uses this documentary as proof of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to foment chaos in the Arab world.

If Levy thinks that releasing such a film would have a positive effect in, say, Syria, it is possible that his own ego is now more pronounced than his analytic abilities.

Arab women writers kill anthology rather than include Israelis

If you go to Amazon, you can see pre-publication information for this book:

The synopsis from the publisher, the University of Texas Press, says:

Memory of a Promise
Short Stories by Middle Eastern Women

By Annes McCann-Baker

What is life like for women in the Middle East? As the region continues to make headlines, more and more people in the West have begun to ask this question. Unfortunately, stereotypes abound. In Memory of a Promise: Short Stories by Middle Eastern Women, female authors from sixteen nations, from Morocco to Uzbekistan, provide a look at a broad range of women's experiences and do much to dispel notions of the region as homogenous.

Unfortunately, you will never be able to buy this book.

Here is why:

For many scholars, a fitting way to honor a deceased colleague is to produce an anthology of related work. At the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, that was the thinking behind plans for a volume of fiction and other writing by women in the Middle East. The anthology was to honor the late Elizabeth Fernea, who in her years at Texas had helped build up the study of the region and who promoted the publication in translation of works from the many countries there.

In the last week, however, the project fell apart -- as the movement to boycott Israel in every possible way left Texas officials believing that they couldn't complete the work.

The anthology was to have been published in conjunction with the University of Texas Press, and 29 authors agreed to have works included. Then one of the women found out that two of the authors were Israelis. She then notified the others that she would withdraw her piece unless Texas excluded the two Israelis. When the university refused to do so, a total of 13 authors pulled out. A few others wouldn't tell the center whether they were willing to go ahead with the project, and without assent from those authors, it was not clear that the anthology would include a single Arab author. (The other authors besides the Israelis were from non-Arab parts of the Middle East.)

Kamran Scot Aghaie, director of the center at UT, said that it "would not have been academically sound" to do the book without any Arab authors, but that it wouldn't have been academically or ethically sound to exclude the Israelis. Since the Arab authors wouldn't participate, the book was scrapped.

Aghaie said that several of the authors who pulled out told him that they objected to his not telling them in advance that there would be Israelis in the volume. He said he rejected that idea -- not only for this book but for any future work.

"My view is that it's not proper to single out individual contributors for other contributors to veto. We were not willing to give any group special treatment," he said.

Further, Aghaie said that he does not believe academic institutions should be involved in boycotts of academics or writers in other countries. Aghaie said he understands the idea behind boycotts generally. He describes himself as someone who is "highly critical of the tactics Israelis and Palestinians have been using against each other." But whatever one thinks of Israel, he said, there is no reason to refuse to work with Israeli academics or authors -- or to expect other universities to assist in such a boycott -- as some of the authors expected Texas to do with regard to calls by some pro-Palestinian groups to boycott anything or anyone connected to Israel.

"As an academic institution, we cannot censor people for the country they are from," he said. And he also noted that the boycott of Israel is a boycott of Jewish Israelis, not other Israelis, whose participation does not raise objections. Even if one feels boycotts are appropriate for, say, companies that engage in particular activities, "academics need to be an exception," he said. "As a publishing press or as a program, it's not appropriate for us to single out anyone based on religion or national origin," he said. "To do so is simply discrimination, and it's wrong."

"The last thing you want to do is cut off dialogue. That's the stupidest thing one would do," he said.

Aghaie views the events of the last few weeks with sadness, but others view them as a victory.

Gulf News ran an editorial praising Huzama Habayeb, the Palestinian writer who organized the boycott from Abu Dhabi, where she lives. The editorial describes her as smiling upon finding out that the anthology had been called off.

"Habayeb's actions are those of a resistance fighter -- never giving an inch to Israel, which has illegally occupied her homeland," says the editorial. "But there's also a bigger issue ' one whereby academics the world over need to ensure that Israel is isolated for its immoral and illegal actions in occupying Palestine and repressing the Palestinian people. The pen is mightier than the sword."

In an interview with Gulf News, Habayeb said she was thrilled that her efforts had killed the anthology. 'I am so proud of having the book canceled,' she said. "I am a Palestinian and to achieve this, to be able to resist the illegal Israeli occupation of my homeland is something that I will cherish forever. It is my own victory in the struggle."

Prominent, presumably liberal Arab women authors chose to have their own voices muzzled rather than allow Israeli words to be heard along with theirs.

This story once again epitomizes the difference between Zionists and anti-Zionists. Zionists want to include, anti-Zionists want to exclude; Zionists want to embrace, anti-Zionists want to hate. And this manifestation of boycotting Jews of the Middle East is pure, unadulterated hate.

Moreover, Gulf News - an Arab media outlet that publishes in English - chooses to support the suppression of free speech.

However, the newspaper's comparison of  Habayeb with terrorists is most apt, even if it is meant to be a compliment. Like a terrorist, Habayeb wants to silence Jews in the Middle East from speaking, and she is willing to sacrifice her own well-being to do so.

The director of the Center for Middle East Studies at UT astutely notes that the Arabs only want to boycott Jewish Israelis, not Arab Israelis.

Because even from Texas, despite his sympathies for Arab women, he knows bigotry when he sees it.

(h/t Phyllis)

Yemeni arguments against MB "culture of death" also apply to PalArabs

Yemen has been at war with al-Qaeda in recent months, and on May 21 a suicide bomber killed 96. A featured article in Yemencom describes how sick the people are of Islamist terror:

During the past few months many Yemeni cities, particularly Aden and Sanaa, have seen terrorist bombings carried out by suicide bombers that booby-trapped their bodies, in an assembly line for the production of the culture of death...they carry out suicide bombings targeting a large number of civilian sites as well as military and police, security and armed forces during performance of their duties; the massacre in the capital Sanaa on the morning of Monday, May 21, 2012 is further evidence that confirms the seriousness of machine-like production of the culture of death on society and the state at the same time.

A large number of researchers in the affairs of political Islam believe that all entities and extremist groups popped up like mushrooms from the robe of the Muslim Brotherhood, but this group denies the validity of this belief. For quite some time the Muslim Brotherhood has been making up slogans of democracy and human rights and try to join U.S. and EU projects for the promotion of democracy and liberalism in the Middle East in particular and the Arab and Muslim world in general. No doubt also that there are differences in attitudes between different groups of the jihadist spectrum under the umbrella of political Islam, but they have a common desire to seek to restore the caliphate...

The author goes on to give a history of the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has been the basis for Al Qaeda and other groups, many under the umbrella of the "World Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Christians."

It is interesting that the author describes the culture of death so well - but doesn't notice that on this day in particular, Palestinian Arab society has united in their fond memories of the "heroism" of the suicide bombers and other terrorists whose bodies were given to them today.

The culture of death is not limited to Al Qaeda. It is alive and well in the Palestinian Arab territories. Today.

Unfortunately, we will never see an Arabic-language article condemning the essentially universal Palestinian Arab love of terrorist murderers the way this article slams the culture of death in Yemen.