Truly a great defender of the Jewish people, Barry Rubin z"l

...Writing from his hospital bed in 2012, he wrote: “Thanks to our Creator for our lives and thanks to our Creator for the chances we are given--often more than we merit--to transcend those lives by good deeds, integrity, solidarity with those who stand for the just and the free, and love for our fellows.”

Ariel Ben Solomon..
JPost..
03 February '14..

Barry Rubin, one of the most important, indefatigable, and prolific commentators on Middle East politics, international affairs, and world history – often touching on Jewish topics and Zionism – passed away on Monday morning after falling into a coma in his 18-month battle with cancer.

Prof. Rubin was the director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya for nearly two decades and a long-time columnist for The Jerusalem Post. He also was the Middle East editor and featured columnist at PJ Media, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and editor of the Turkish Studies Journal.

American-born Rubin, a former Fulbright and Council on Foreign Relations fellow, received his Ph.D from Georgetown University in 1978 and taught both at major Israeli and American Universities.

Most of his commentary was published on his widely read personal blog, The Rubin Report, a treasure trove of insight for thousands of followers. Moreover, Rubin authored and edited numerous books and thousands of articles.

Upon being diagnosed with cancer in 2012, Rubin wrote:

“People always asked me why I wrote so much and so intensively. I never told them one of the real reasons: I always expected my life would be limited. My grandfathers died, respectively, at 42 and 44, both of things that could have been cured today. My father died of a heart attack at 62, and his life probably could have been extended many years today by all the new tests and drugs available. But I felt that once I passed that birthday, less than a year ago, I might be living on borrowed time.”

Rubin was a strenuous defender of Jews, Israel, and US interests and an intellectual, who probably would not be comfortable with the label, considering that he viewed modern day elite and the mainstream media with great suspicion.

Rubin did not see a near-term solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, believing Jews should defend themselves. Anti-Semitism was "at the highest point in the West and the world generally since 1945," he wrote in 2010, believing that the West is in denial about this reality. He saw revolutionary Islamism as the current driving force behind this hatred.

“Let us try to preserve as much as possible of the rapidly disappearing Jewish people. And if you want to boycott someone, why not start with those who insist on remaining our enemies and who would like to murder us?” he said.

Norway As Example: It's Forbidden to Discuss How Political Apologists for Terror-Using Groups Unintentionally Increase Terrorism

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
06 August '11



http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/case-study-from-norway-it-is-forbidden.html

Note: This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post in response to recent events. I hope this is the last time I address the issue. If you are going to forward or post a copy please use this one as it has a number of small improvements and is not cut.

Before I begin I want to make five points absolutely clear:

1. I was one of the first people in the world to write condemning the action in Norway as terrorism and as committed by a right-winger. Therefore--and based on my career of 35 years including 30 years working on counterterrorism--it should be clear that I would never endorse the murder of dozens of people. The irony is that a plea to fight terrorism by not granting it rewards was distorted into a pro-terrorist position!

2. A large portion of the Norwegian mass media has repeatedly stated that I endorsed the killings and called the kids at the camp terrorists. This is a lie. False quotes were attributed to my article. To my best knowledge, nobody in Norway tried to establish the truth or report fairly.

3. No Norwegian media--indeed no reporter from anywhere in the world--made any attempt to interview me on this issue and find out what I thought and what I wrote. Imagine, this is the biggest story in Norway and nobody contacted me at all.

4. The Jerusalem Post never discussed this issue with me nor contacted me to discuss the issue and hear my position. I have written for this newspaper for about 30 years without a single controversy arising before.

5. We have arrived at the strange situation in which the Norwegian media and apparently the Norwegian government considers me to be "pro-terrorist" but does not consider Hamas (and a number of other groups one could name) to be "pro-terrorist."

What explains this kind of thing--deliberate lies, deceitful reporting, disinterest in truth, disinterest in fairness? Answer: The conversion of the public debate and media into propaganda exercises in which (ironically, McCarthyist) witchhunts are conducted and those entrusted with the sacred pursuit of truth and accuracy use their positions to spread lies, incitement, and indoctrination.

This has been going on now for some years but there's nothing like experiencing something first-hand to comprehend it well. I now hope to get back to work as an analyst of international affairs and especially of the Middle East.

Foreign Minister Store with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya: Smiles at Hamas, Frown at Israel. Deny Being an Enabler of Terrorism. Norwegian media accuses me--but not Hamas--of supporting terrorism. Haniya on US. assassination of Usama bin Ladin,

“Of course we condemn the…killing of a Muslim jihad fighter….We pray for Allah to cover him with His mercy, next to the prophets, the righteous, and the martyrs."

A Case Study from Norway: It Is Forbidden to Discuss How Political Enablers of Terrorist Groups Unintentionally Encourage Terrorism Without Being Labelled A Terrorist

By Barry Rubin

“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasir Arafat and said: `Iif you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the state of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” --President Shimon Peres, May 2011

We want Palestine in its entirety—so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst…. We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well." -- Hamas leader Mahmud Zahhar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiasm for helping Hamas. .

Ironically, the reaction to my article, “The Oslo Syndrome,” proved its thesis, the same point as the one President Shimon Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.

The Norwegian government and media establishment wants no honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there.

How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing?

Fresnozionism - JPost apologizes for telling it like it is

Fresnozionism.org
05 August '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/08/jpost-apologizes-for-telling-it-like-it-is/

It is distressing when an honest person, or newspaper, speaks the truth and is bullied into taking it back.

On July 25, the Jerusalem Post published an editorial (“Norway’s challenge“) about the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utøya, Norway.

The editorial — which at least for now still exists on the Web, but is no longer linked from the Post’s editorial pages — was quite clear in denouncing the murderous actions of Anders Breivik. But it included this:

While it is still too early to determine definitively Breivik’s precise motives, it could very well be that the attack was more pernicious – and more widespread – than the isolated act of a lunatic. Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere. While there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimatized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right…

The challenge for Norway in particular and for Europe as a whole, where the Muslim population is expected to account for 8% of the population by 2030 according to a Pew Research Center, is to strike the right balance. Fostering an open society untainted by xenophobia or racism should go hand in hand with protection of unique European culture and values.

Europe’s fringe right-wing extremists present a real danger to society. But Oslo’s devastating tragedy should not be allowed to be manipulated by those who would cover up the abject failure of multiculturalism. [my emphasis]

Negative reactions were immediate, with many accusing the paper of supporting Breivik’s goals or providing a “justification” for Breivik’s terrorist act.

Judge for yourself. It seems to me that the editorial makes a valid point: here you have a despicable individual committing a despicable act, who irrationally believed that his action would solve a problem. Does this imply that there is no problem, or, worse, that no one is allowed to mention the problem lest they inspire similarly deranged individuals to terrorism?

Let’s turn it around. There is Arab terrorism against Israel, supposedly because ‘Palestinian’ land is ‘occupied’. Are those who believe this and say it publicly therefore responsible for Arab terrorism? There are quite a few Norwegians that would fall into this category.

How Do Officials, Journalists, Academics, Analysts React to Critiques of Conventional Wisdom on the Middle East? Answer: They Don't!

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
26 April '10

A reader asks:
I have found your most recent articles hugely helpful in debunking so much of the international myth that the Israeli Palestinian conflict dominates and is the root cause of every problem facing the entire Middle East.

But then I largely agree with everything you and Jonathan Spyer have to say.

Apart from hate mail and frivolous objections from doubtful sources, which I am sure you get your fair share, do you ever get reasoned and logical analysis from other serious Middle Eastern experts or professors who find fault with your ideas or reject your premises entirely?

Response:
Thanks. You have asked a very good question. And the answer is simple: No, literally never. In fact, never. Why is this?

Rather than the historic ideas that governed serious analysis and scholarly work for centuries, there seems to be a pattern now that viewpoints other than the dominant one—U.S. and West largely at fault, Islamism is not the central problem, Arab-Israeli conflict at core of region, radical groups can be moderated, Syria can be won over, Palestinians eager for peace, etc.--need not be taken into account. The style seems to be that one begins with a thesis, gathers whatever talking points or documentation needed to promote or prove it, and then that is sufficient without dealing with the best arguments to the contrary.

What is missing is the need to engage and respond to other arguments. Many of my articles consist of taking up a text or speech or article by someone, honestly trying to understand fully the ideas presented, analyzing them, and then responding where I think they are wrong as well as right.

Of course, I’m presenting a perspective but I have to prove it, with evidence and persuasive logic. I probably spend almost as much time quoting people I disagree with--and linking to what they've said--as I do saying what I think. You can see both sides and judge for yourself.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Who or what are we fighting?

FresnoZionism
08 January '10

“It is not that Islam has been hijacked, rather different forces are fighting over control of the steering wheel.” — Barry Rubin

For the first time — as far as I can tell — in recorded history, a war is raging in which one side does not know the identity of its enemy.

This war has been underway since at least the 1990’s and pits the US and other Western democracies against various groups whose ideology is Radical Islamism. It is not a ‘war on terror’ — which is a tactic, not an opponent — and certainly not ‘overseas contingency operations’, an expression that Orwell would have been proud to invent. But on the other hand neither is it a ‘clash of civilizations’ and the enemy is not Islam.

What exactly is Radical Islamism, how is it related to Islam, why do Islamists employ the tactic of terrorism, why are we fighting, and what can be done to defeat it?

Important questions, and it appears that the previous and present US administrations lacked and continue to lack answers.

The following is a short but incisive discussion of these questions. It should be required reading in Washington. — ed.

***

Radical Islamism: An Introductory Primer
By Barry Rubin

A young American named Ramy Zamzam, arrested in Pakistan for trying to fight alongside the Taliban, responded in an interview with the Associated Press: “We are not terrorists. We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism.”

What he says is well worth bearing in mind in order to understand the great conflict of our era. First and foremost, Jihadism or radical Islamism is far more than mere terrorism. It is a revolutionary movement in every sense of the word. It seeks to overthrow existing regimes and replace them with governments that will transform society into a nightmarishly repressive system.

And so one might put it this way: Revolutionary Islamism is the main strategic problem in the world today. Terrorism is the main tactical problem.

Read the rest here

.