Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

The headline seems to be misleading, I think the gist of the speech is about not donating military aid rather than not selling arms.

Over 1100 have drowned this week trying to get from Libya to Europe:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/700-migrants-feared-dead-mediterranean-shipwreck-worst-yet

Hundreds of them were locked in the hold on the ship. Another boat sunk off the Greek island of Rhodes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

the planning that went into the creation of the Islamic State and the role of a former officer in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service, with the main thesis being that behind the veneer of religious fanaticism was a master plan based on "tactical pragmatism." An excerpt:

>. . . when the architect of the Islamic State died, he left something behind that he had intended to keep strictly confidential: the blueprint for this state. It is a folder full of handwritten organizational charts, lists and schedules, which describe how a country can be gradually subjugated. SPIEGEL has gained exclusive access to the 31 pages, some consisting of several pages pasted together. They reveal a multilayered composition and directives for action, some already tested and others newly devised for the anarchical situation in Syria's rebel-held territories. In a sense, the documents are the source code of the most successful terrorist army in recent history.

so now that ISIS has supplanted al qaeda as the main islamic bugaboo is it safe to say that in many ways they seem ... worse?

generally speaking i agree that they're much worse - tho it seems like they're much, much less interested in symbolic attacks on the US than al-q is

agree that's the major difference, which is largely tactical. they're goals seem similar.

al-q succeeded in luring the usa into the unmitigated disaster in Iraq, which most definitely set the table for isis and made it possible. what makes isis worse than al-q is that they have assembled an effective army that can threaten regional governments, where al-q only assembled small, scattered forces. they both state that the restoration of the caliphate is their ultimate goal.

x-post

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/17/death-mediterranean-africans-migrant-sea-libya

Eritreans formed the second largest group of immigrants to Europe last year, after Syrians

http://news.yahoo.com/us-warship-heads-yemeni-waters-block-iranian-weapons-182036698--politics.html

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-21/obama-kept-iran-s-short-breakout-time-a-secret

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-led-coalition-begins-phase-yemen-campaign-150421155500641.html

Political deal next, as the bombing campaign had too much "collateral damage", and they don't want to send in troops

Other video images posted by fighters and antigovernment activists showed insurgents, including some with Fursan al-Haq, a Free Syrian Army group, using what appeared to be guided antitank missiles to blow up armored vehicles in the battles in Idlib Province in recent days.

Last year, the United States provided a small number of TOW antitank missiles to some rebel groups. But those groups were largely routed or co-opted by the Nusra Front, further complicating what was already a murky battlefield that has left American officials wary of providing more robust aid to insurgents.

Now, though, some opposition advocates say that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, longtime supporters of the uprising against Mr. Assad, are prepared to step up aid to insurgents with or without American support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/middleeast/islamist-militants-capture-syrian-town.html?mabReward=CTM&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&module=Recommendation&action=click&contentCollection=Music®ion=Footer&configSection=article&isLoggedIn=true&src=recg&pgtype=article

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0427/Why-Iran-is-standing-by-its-weakened-and-expensive-ally-Syria

“Outside the regime, Iran has no contacts in Syria. Syrian businessmen trade with other Arab countries,” says the former Syrian official, adding, ironically, that the billions of dollars handed by Iran to Syria “is financing Syrian imports from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, not from Iran.”

If the nascent deal between Iran and the international community over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is concluded in the coming months, it could end the crippling sanctions on Tehran, swelling the country’s coffers once more. But the combination of a more assertive Sunni regional alliance against Assad and the desperate shortage of manpower to fend off anti-Assad rebels potentially bodes ill for the Syrian regime – and Iran’s reach into the Levant – in the long term, analysts say.

Hmmmmm....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/assads-regime-at-increasing-risk-amid-a-surge-of-rebel-advances/2015/04/26/c2742e22-ec32-11e4-8050-839e9234b303_story.html?hpid=z2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/27/is-the-house-of-saud-teetering-on-the-edge-of-collapse/?hpid=z2

lol I don't believe the House of Saud is in any serious danger of losing it's grip on power

Assad otoh ... well I'd be more inclined to believe them if we hadn't already heard those rumors before but we'll see. and of course at this point looks highly unlikely that any replacement regime in Syria would be much of an improvement.

http://rt.com/news/253929-saudi-bombs-yemen-runway/

what a mess

more bombs'll solve that problem

This was strange and potentially worrying:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/us-mideast-crisis-kurds-idUSKBN0NJ1PH20150428

Five people, four of them Kurds, arrested for a car bombing in Erbil on behalf of ISIS. Erbil has always been considered so safe relative to the rest of Iraq that we were still sending people there on business until last week (and i was half planning to go myself at some point) but that has all been suspended. I'd think it's unlikely to be part of a much wider pattern but it's the only time i can recall Kurdish kids carrying out activities for the other side.

interesting interview w/ head of joint list:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-top-arab-politician-seeks-a-future-in-the-jewish-state/

Just don't read the comments section, the Times of Israel, it would seem, being no different from any other online newspaper in that regard.

well this certainly doesn't sound like the IDF doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties now does it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-veterans-say-permissive-rules-of-engagement-fueled-gaza-carnage/2015/05/04/ab698d16-f020-11e4-8050-839e9234b303_story.html?hpid=z3

The soldiers described reducing Gaza neighborhoods to sand, firing artillery at random houses to avenge fallen comrades, shooting at innocent civilians because they were bored and watching armed drones attack a pair of women talking on cellphones because they were assumed to be Hamas scouts.

yup just usual war stuff

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-the-11th-hour-netanyahu-finalizes-61-strong-coalition/

spoiler warning: bennett is in it

Not good. Will the coalition last?

they never do, but i think it has at least a little mileage in it before it collapses.

to get jewish home on board bibi ended up giving education minister to bennett, justice minister to shaked, and agricultural to ariel -

http://www.timesofisrael.com/who-is-ayelet-shaked-israels-new-justice-minister/

As a Knesset member, Shaked has pushed for passage of an amendment that would limit the High Court of Justice’s power, and has been an advocate for deporting African migrants, defending the government policy of detaining them in a Negev facility. She also supported the controversial “Jewish State” law, which would enshrine Israel’s status as a Jewish state into law. (Critics of the law said it undermined Israel’s democracy.)

She’s a fierce critic of Israel’s left and its media.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-propaganda-machine-sophisticated-prolific-us-officials/story?id=30888982

^nb autoplaying video on page

“This is sophisticated. It is Madison Avenue meets documentary film making meets news channel with sensibilities and marketing value," Talan said.

In one video, ISIS produces its own, twisted version of the popular “Grand Theft Auto” video game. While ISIS fighters gun down victims on the screen, the message flashes, “Your games -- We do the same actions on the battlefield.”

"So it's the reverse of our culture, where we say 'escape real life and play a game.' They're saying, 'escape your life, come play a real game with real consequences,'" Talan said. "They are using products from American culture -- video games -- for their purposes, and taking and making a message that works for them.”

In one ISIS video posted on Twitter, soldiers hand out ice cream to a group of excited kids. A few scenes later, you see some of the young boys grabbing AK-47’s, waving them above their heads, and chanting ISIS slogans.

“It is disturbing, but there's a reason children are used.” Talan said. “Madison Avenue uses it all the time. ... It touches empathy. It gets people to say, 'Aww." It puts your defenses down -- it makes you want to pay attention and feel human.”

Disturbing.

But others are suddenly optimistic about Syria (including this op-ed writer below for the W. Post who leans to a hawkish position):

Driving the opposition push in Syria is a new working relationship between Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, the key backers of the rebels in northern Syria. Those countries had been at loggerheads since the Syrian revolution began in 2011, and their internecine quarrels and proxy wars were debilitating for the opposition. Conversely, their new alliance has bolstered the opposition’s chances — and led to major gains on the battlefield.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-cooperation-on-syria/2015/05/12/bdb48a68-f8ed-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html?hpid=z3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/toughening-its-stance-toward-migrants-israel-pushes-africans-to-leave/2015/05/14/e1637bce-f350-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_story.html

Israeli authorities are sending letters to the first of 45,000 Eritrean and Sudanese refugees, informing them they have 30 days to accept Israel’s offer of $3,500 in cash and a one-way ticket home or to an unnamed third country in Africa, or face incarceration at Saharonim prison.

Nobody wants refugees, not Israel, not Europe, not Pacific Asian countries, not the US

I don't really know what I think about state obligations to refugees. On one hand, it's impossible not to sympathize with refugees. On the other, it's obvious that taking in a huge number of uneducated, unskilled, poor immigrants creates a huge burden for the current citizens of a given State. Otoh, humans are an important resource esp for places like Europe which are experiencing a falling birthrate. I started this thread last year to hopefully try and sort it out for myself: open or national borders? but it hasn't helped. Am I right in understanding that both the far left and radical free marketers are pro-open borders? And then everyone in between (and particularly the working class) is against?

It is complicated, but you would hope some countries could take in refugees. Also, if only Eritrea and Libya had nice democratic governments, plus a few other places around the world...

It's always worth remembering that the vast majority of refugees are not in MEDC countries and that poor nations still take the bulk of the burden. Pakistan has about 1.7m refugees, for example. Israeli courts have already rejected the indefinite imprisonment of asylum seekers as contrary to Israeli and international law, iirc. There's a principle that refugees can not be returned to their country of origin if they face credible threats of persecution unless it's done voluntarily. Saying "go or we'll jail you forever" stretches the meaning of "voluntary" beyond breaking point.

I can't help but feel like 'international law' is always for the country you're looking to condemn and never for yourself vis-a-vis esp first world countries (the US is particularly hypocritical re taking in refugees). I've grown very skeptical of international law in general over the last decade, both bc it has no real legitimacy (it can't override the sovereignty of a particular country, even though the language it is often expressed in tries to make a claim to universalism) and bc the UN is a political body that expresses the political objectives and grievances of its members. Too often it seems to become a tool for more powerful countries (or even not so powerful countries) to browbeat other countries into doing things they themselves will not.

When I was in college I took faith in the UN as a fundamental principle of liberalism, and distrust in the institution as representative of a right-wing, even nationalistic, ideology. But I think that was a canard - the UN is as much about expressing the nationalism of countries (through lawfare) as it is about trying to create standards of conduct. Especially since the standards of conduct never apply to the countries who most need them (bc they're totalitarian countries anyway so what do we expect? or they're too powerful to bring to heel). nb this is related to the common criticism of the ICC that they only ever go after African countries.

There's a principle that refugees can not be returned to their country of origin if they face credible threats of persecution unless it's done voluntarily. Saying "go or we'll jail you forever" stretches the meaning of "voluntary" beyond breaking point.

yes. i don't know anything about how this is handled in intl. law, or how much practical weight intl. law has in this case. but if israel is offering refugees a choice between returning to a dangerous home, being jailed in israel, or to "an unnamed third country in Africa", that's fucking terrible.

yeah I can't support this ruling, it's inhumane

inhumane, and yet it's awfully convenient to say that country X should be forced to keep their refugees while the US is currently deporting numerous ones itself.

I'm pretty sure that the 'Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees', which is what we're talking about here, is one of the best working conventions. The Danish right-wing sure hate it for no reason, if it doesn't do anything. And of course it's ok for Israel to send back refugees who has been denied asylum and unwanted migrants, every country in Europe does that all the time. But it does seem very very weird that only four Eritreans has been granted asylum, it's a pretty ruthless dictatorship which is known to persecute people who migrate. I think the problem would have more to do with the bureaucracy in immigration than it has to do with the practice of sending them home.

it's awfully convenient to say that country X should be forced to keep their refugees while the US is currently deporting numerous ones itself

how about "fuck the US too," that makes it all better.

I think it has a lot to do w/ Israel being a tiny country w/ a small population, and one of the very few Middle Eastern countries with a first world standard of living making it very attractive to refugees for whom Europe is too far away. xp

the US is currently deporting numerous ones itself.

c'mon man you know I'm not cool with this either

xps, The political objectives the UN was aiming to secure when the rights of refugees were defined in 1951 were to stop countries persecuting or deporting people in the way they had with European Jews during the Holocaust. European countries have been fairly quiet about the treatment of refugees in Israel, Australia, etc, recently as they tend to be pushing for harsher treatment themselves, with some exceptions, though.

International law has its complications and limitations but it's mostly well intentioned even where it's tough to enforce.

My point isn't what you are or aren't cool w/, but that if there's a convention and no one keeps it, then in what way does it exist? A law needs to be kept/enforced or it isn't a real law, it's just something we say we believe in to make ourselves feel good.

applying it wherever possible is better than never applying it

Like fuck the US. Ok, and fuck the UK and Russia and China and Israel and Germany and Denmark and Australia and okay so fuck every country so what exactly are we talking about here? That no countries live up to our high standards? What's the point exactly?

Right, so that's my point. UN conventions for thee but not for me.