I'll admit that I am surprised by the figures you cite, especially that only 7% of Sunnis in Lebanon think Hizbullah should keep their arms indefinitely. if those numbers are accurate, my Sunni associates in Lebanon are in a rather small minority. (I might add that I am from a mixed Sunni/Armenian orthodox family, but from Palestine).
I would have thought that my mention of General Aoun, who has maintained an alliance with Hizbullah for several years, would have addressed that point. And, one of the things to be inferred by the statement that "there plenty of Sunnis whose sympathies lie with Hizbullah" is that there are Sunnis whose sympathies don't.
Professor, I assume that you identify An-Nahar as a Christian-owned newspaper in order to point out the absurdity of Tamer as-Sabhan's statement's about Lebanon being an Hizbullah/Shiite controlled, enemy state of Saudi Arabia. No doubt the comments are absurd, or, anyway in the service of an agenda that is trying to create reality that does not yet exist. And surely there are certain trends within any religious community, including those of Lebanon. However, I am afraid your generalizations are not helpful. As you know, 'Christians' in Lebanon are diverse lot, both in terms of sect and in terms of political orientation. Within the Maronite community, for instance, there are ethno-chauvinists of a fascist bend who at times have been all too happy to ally with Israel, leftist Arab nationalists, political opportunists who will go whichever the wind blows (Gen Aoun, for instance), and others who just want to be left alone. The same diversity exists in the Armenian and Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Greek Catholic, and other Christian denominations. Saying a paper is 'Christian' owned doesn't really say much other than the fact offices might be closed on Christmas or Easter. But, then again, we don't know whose Christmas or whose Easter that might be. As for Sunnis - again, a wide range. There are plenty of Sunnis in Lebanon whose sympathies lie with Hizbullah. And, of Shiites there are people whose political outlook is more in line with Maronite Phalangists than anything articulated either by Hasan Nasrullah or Nabih Berri (not that the latter has anything to say). To be fair, you do mention some of this diversity - including the fact that Shiites vote for parties other than Hizbullah. But, I also think you took the route of convenience in gliding over many of these important differences.
A few considerations: 1) There's a lot of money to be made by trading with both sides. 2) Qatar might pay for the planes, but they certainly won't have complete use of them. And, no doubt, there will be restrictions in terms of functionality, with limited features or computer systems that can be overridden by the US as desired. Then, there is the maintenance and spare parts. If Qatar wants to use these planes for any purpose not in line with the directives of the US, the planes will be grounded. Surely those 10,000 US troops stationed in the country could easily confiscate a few planes if so desired.
But, a larger question to ask is why Qatar would give the US all that money? Yes, I understand, it's a way of reminding the US (Trump) that Qatar has value (ka-ching!) to the US, and, assuming need, it wouldn't be easy to turn away from US suppliers when US Central Command and 10,000 troops are in the country. Still, they're spending billions of dollars on weapons they likely don't need from a country whose leader is in bed with their adversary and mindlessly insults them. Pathetic all the way around.
It is curious how one can speak of Deputy Crown Prince Muhammed ibn Salman's role as a reformer and not mention the disastrous war in Yemen he has pursued. Even overlooking the wretched fact that this war of choice has killed tens of thousands, has destroyed vital infrastructure in Yemen and has impoverished a nation, Saudi Arabia is spending a fortune that could be otherwise used for projects that would benefit its own citizens and residents. The Sisyphean struggle for reform in Saudia Arabia is not only merely caused by the dependence of its citizens for government largesse. but crucially, too, by the cruel hubris of a militaristic prince who trying to punching far above his weight.
Erdogan's criticisms of Israel, at the end of the day, never amounted to much. Overwhelmingly, while Turks offer their sympathies to Palestinians (and sometimes have undertaken symbolic actions like trying to break the blockade of Gaza with boats like the Mavi Marmara), there has not been a great deal of practical, political support for the Palestinians, or least, the kind of support that would get the Israelis to reconsider some of their policies. Why? Because economic relations between the Israelis and Turkey remain strong - including tourism (Israelis to Turkey rather than the other way around) - and, because the strong working relations between the Turkish and Israeli militaries have hardly changed at all.
While I wouldn't dream of criticizing this initiative, it should be pointed out that the premise that puts the categories of Jew and Arab in opposition is incorrect. "Arab" is an ethnic marker, "Jew" is a religious marker. There are plenty of Jewish Arabs in the world (or, Arab Jews, if you prefer, just like Arab Muslim or Arab Christian, or the reverse). This is not to deny the fact that Jewish identity has been "ethnicized," largely in Europe, but does not change the fact that the category "Arab" does not in any way exclude Jews.
Admittedly, the article on Counterpunch asserting that you, Professor Cole, are a CIA collaborator, is far fetched. Giving a talk to the CIA/FBI/Congress/any particular group isn't the same as working for them.
However, you, yourself go way overboard in asserting the notion that critics of NATO operations in Libya are pro-Qaddhafi. Yes, there are some voices on the left that hold the colonel up as some paragon hero of Third World progress, a leader for African peoples, etc. But, the majority are far more thoughtful. Qaddhafi is bad, he should go. But not the way it's being done. NATO/GCC has no altruistic interest in Libya and it is naive to believe that their motives in Libya are anything more than dishonorable. They saw Qaddhafi as unpredictable and saw the opportunity to take him out under the guise of a legitimate internal revolt (and, yes, it is legitimate). In the end, they hope to assert some sort of control, whether military bases, oil deals that cut the Chinese and Russians out (again, part of Qaddhafi's unpredictability. European companies had no problem securing Libyan oil, but what about if the colonel goes into some rage and decides to cut them out?), political alliances, control over where Libya's vast financial assets are directed, - it wouldn't be surprising if Qaddhafi's vital support for the African Development Bank goes by the wayside, or in other ways.
The reasons NATO became involved were largely fabrications or exaggerations: the mass rape, the supposed use of Libyan aircraft to attack civilians, the threats to wipe out everyone in Benghazi. This isn't to say that there weren't plenty of other reasons to get rid of Qaddhafi. There were plenty, and, good riddance. But, anyone who believes that NATO and company are there for the welfare of the Libyan people is naive.
Of course, things might not go as NATO powers plan. While the seductions of power might encourage the transitional leadership to play along, people on the ground might not be so malleable. Iraq is the perfect example.
All to say, the assertion that critics of the NATO adventure in Libya are all naive Qaddhafi supporters is unjustified. Some no doubt are, including Cynthia McKinney, Ramsey Clark, and others who went on those Qaddhafi-sponsored fact-finding missions. But, Dr. Cole, most critics aren't so compromised.
I'll admit that I am surprised by the figures you cite, especially that only 7% of Sunnis in Lebanon think Hizbullah should keep their arms indefinitely. if those numbers are accurate, my Sunni associates in Lebanon are in a rather small minority. (I might add that I am from a mixed Sunni/Armenian orthodox family, but from Palestine).
I would have thought that my mention of General Aoun, who has maintained an alliance with Hizbullah for several years, would have addressed that point. And, one of the things to be inferred by the statement that "there plenty of Sunnis whose sympathies lie with Hizbullah" is that there are Sunnis whose sympathies don't.
Professor, I assume that you identify An-Nahar as a Christian-owned newspaper in order to point out the absurdity of Tamer as-Sabhan's statement's about Lebanon being an Hizbullah/Shiite controlled, enemy state of Saudi Arabia. No doubt the comments are absurd, or, anyway in the service of an agenda that is trying to create reality that does not yet exist. And surely there are certain trends within any religious community, including those of Lebanon. However, I am afraid your generalizations are not helpful. As you know, 'Christians' in Lebanon are diverse lot, both in terms of sect and in terms of political orientation. Within the Maronite community, for instance, there are ethno-chauvinists of a fascist bend who at times have been all too happy to ally with Israel, leftist Arab nationalists, political opportunists who will go whichever the wind blows (Gen Aoun, for instance), and others who just want to be left alone. The same diversity exists in the Armenian and Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Greek Catholic, and other Christian denominations. Saying a paper is 'Christian' owned doesn't really say much other than the fact offices might be closed on Christmas or Easter. But, then again, we don't know whose Christmas or whose Easter that might be. As for Sunnis - again, a wide range. There are plenty of Sunnis in Lebanon whose sympathies lie with Hizbullah. And, of Shiites there are people whose political outlook is more in line with Maronite Phalangists than anything articulated either by Hasan Nasrullah or Nabih Berri (not that the latter has anything to say). To be fair, you do mention some of this diversity - including the fact that Shiites vote for parties other than Hizbullah. But, I also think you took the route of convenience in gliding over many of these important differences.
A few considerations: 1) There's a lot of money to be made by trading with both sides. 2) Qatar might pay for the planes, but they certainly won't have complete use of them. And, no doubt, there will be restrictions in terms of functionality, with limited features or computer systems that can be overridden by the US as desired. Then, there is the maintenance and spare parts. If Qatar wants to use these planes for any purpose not in line with the directives of the US, the planes will be grounded. Surely those 10,000 US troops stationed in the country could easily confiscate a few planes if so desired.
But, a larger question to ask is why Qatar would give the US all that money? Yes, I understand, it's a way of reminding the US (Trump) that Qatar has value (ka-ching!) to the US, and, assuming need, it wouldn't be easy to turn away from US suppliers when US Central Command and 10,000 troops are in the country. Still, they're spending billions of dollars on weapons they likely don't need from a country whose leader is in bed with their adversary and mindlessly insults them. Pathetic all the way around.
It is curious how one can speak of Deputy Crown Prince Muhammed ibn Salman's role as a reformer and not mention the disastrous war in Yemen he has pursued. Even overlooking the wretched fact that this war of choice has killed tens of thousands, has destroyed vital infrastructure in Yemen and has impoverished a nation, Saudi Arabia is spending a fortune that could be otherwise used for projects that would benefit its own citizens and residents. The Sisyphean struggle for reform in Saudia Arabia is not only merely caused by the dependence of its citizens for government largesse. but crucially, too, by the cruel hubris of a militaristic prince who trying to punching far above his weight.
Erdogan's criticisms of Israel, at the end of the day, never amounted to much. Overwhelmingly, while Turks offer their sympathies to Palestinians (and sometimes have undertaken symbolic actions like trying to break the blockade of Gaza with boats like the Mavi Marmara), there has not been a great deal of practical, political support for the Palestinians, or least, the kind of support that would get the Israelis to reconsider some of their policies. Why? Because economic relations between the Israelis and Turkey remain strong - including tourism (Israelis to Turkey rather than the other way around) - and, because the strong working relations between the Turkish and Israeli militaries have hardly changed at all.
While I wouldn't dream of criticizing this initiative, it should be pointed out that the premise that puts the categories of Jew and Arab in opposition is incorrect. "Arab" is an ethnic marker, "Jew" is a religious marker. There are plenty of Jewish Arabs in the world (or, Arab Jews, if you prefer, just like Arab Muslim or Arab Christian, or the reverse). This is not to deny the fact that Jewish identity has been "ethnicized," largely in Europe, but does not change the fact that the category "Arab" does not in any way exclude Jews.
Admittedly, the article on Counterpunch asserting that you, Professor Cole, are a CIA collaborator, is far fetched. Giving a talk to the CIA/FBI/Congress/any particular group isn't the same as working for them.
However, you, yourself go way overboard in asserting the notion that critics of NATO operations in Libya are pro-Qaddhafi. Yes, there are some voices on the left that hold the colonel up as some paragon hero of Third World progress, a leader for African peoples, etc. But, the majority are far more thoughtful. Qaddhafi is bad, he should go. But not the way it's being done. NATO/GCC has no altruistic interest in Libya and it is naive to believe that their motives in Libya are anything more than dishonorable. They saw Qaddhafi as unpredictable and saw the opportunity to take him out under the guise of a legitimate internal revolt (and, yes, it is legitimate). In the end, they hope to assert some sort of control, whether military bases, oil deals that cut the Chinese and Russians out (again, part of Qaddhafi's unpredictability. European companies had no problem securing Libyan oil, but what about if the colonel goes into some rage and decides to cut them out?), political alliances, control over where Libya's vast financial assets are directed, - it wouldn't be surprising if Qaddhafi's vital support for the African Development Bank goes by the wayside, or in other ways.
The reasons NATO became involved were largely fabrications or exaggerations: the mass rape, the supposed use of Libyan aircraft to attack civilians, the threats to wipe out everyone in Benghazi. This isn't to say that there weren't plenty of other reasons to get rid of Qaddhafi. There were plenty, and, good riddance. But, anyone who believes that NATO and company are there for the welfare of the Libyan people is naive.
Of course, things might not go as NATO powers plan. While the seductions of power might encourage the transitional leadership to play along, people on the ground might not be so malleable. Iraq is the perfect example.
All to say, the assertion that critics of the NATO adventure in Libya are all naive Qaddhafi supporters is unjustified. Some no doubt are, including Cynthia McKinney, Ramsey Clark, and others who went on those Qaddhafi-sponsored fact-finding missions. But, Dr. Cole, most critics aren't so compromised.