Haven't we been hearing for _decades_ that the Iranians really want peace, in spite of what their government does? And have these sage pronouncement been borne out by any effort at all on the part of the Iranian people to change the policies of their government, or even protest them?

Surely, the world is full of expatriate Iranians who are beyond the reach of the Iranian security services. Have they spoken out in any significant way?

So why should I believe the same nonsense about the Syrians?

Weren't the Lebanese supposed to be the most pro-Israel and pro-western Arab country? Don't they tell us every chance they get that they really really would like peace and that it's not at all their fault that their country has been overrun by a terrorist army? And yet what do these words come to?

If they can't be bothered to do more than cry about the sorry condition of their countries and governments, then it certainly is not Israel's responsibility to hear their cries.

I'm not willing to accept a logic in which Israel becomes once again the heavy because, after all, most Arabs really want peace no matter what their governments do and say. If "most Arabs" aren't willing to risk even the slightest social discomfort for the sake of peace, and not even a few are willing to risk more than that, then they have no right to expect peace.

It doesn't impress me to see articles like this on western English language web sites. That makes it an exercise in propaganda, telling a western audience what they want to hear.

I won't go so far as to accuse Mr. Alrabaa of anything, but an article like this on a site like this is hardly an effective protest.

When I see this presumed silent majority do something other than complain, I will be impressed. Until then, I think Israel should assume that the Arab street is exactly what it seems, a dangerous seething cauldron of hate.

Perhaps, if we finally abandon wishful thinking, they'll get the message that the clock has run out and their excuses won't keep any of them from becoming the next Gaza.

If they can't be bothered to do more than cry about the sorry condition of their countries and governments, then it certainly is not Israel's responsibility to hear their cries.

I think that Dr. Alrabaa is saying that it's the Arabs responsibility to do something about the mess that they've created. It's up to the 'silent majority' to take action. If they don't, then they suffer the consequences.

In this article and in Alrabaa's book Arab leaders are the 'heavy'. As they should be.

I see that, rhetorically, but the fact that the message is delivered to a western audience is one thing that makes me suspicious of it. That I've heard it all before is another.

I would be more impressed if he completed the thought and concluded that the evidence is in. The silent majority will never act.

I would be more impressed if he completed the thought and concluded that the evidence is in. The silent majority will never act.

I don't think he could do that, since he's talking about his own community. It's one thing to chide them and criticize them for failing to do the right thing. If you give up on them completely, then you lose hope.

I don't think he's trying to gain sympathy for Arabs in the western world. He is trying to show that Arab/Islamist leaders are the worst of the worst in their society. Hamas is evil and so is Fatah. Iran is evil and so is Saudi Arabia. We're not going to gain anything by allying with any of these losers.

It's not clear what can be done about any of this, but it is clear that pragmatism is a rare thing in that part of the world.

Sorry Mary. I really do appreciate what you're saying. I do. It's just that talk is cheap, and talk directed at non-scary audiences is cheaper.

Let me give an example of what looks like courage to me.

http://www.wupiran.com/

I suspect you'll disagree with their ideology and most of their analysis of the world, as I do, but damn they at least have the guts to be in the fight rather than just monday morning quarterbacking it.

Again, remember Lebanon. There were so many rational sounding voices coming out of Lebanon throughout its decline into subjugation. But they just like to hear themselves talk. They never took any real risks and consequently never accomplished anything.

So yes I've got no hope invested in this guy. Give me more of that woman, whose name I've forgotten, who gets on AJ and takes on the clerics. Show me people who are willing to go where they get spit on and insulted to speak their minds.

> I don't think he could do that, since he's
> talking about his own community.

and yes he can do that, if it's the truth. Any Arab who really wants peace has got to reach the point of being exasperated, or else I suspect he's lying to himself or his audience.

I know people who give personal advice in the same tone as this article. They know you won't take the advice, because it's not practical for you or too ambitious, but they want to be on record as having said something apparently constructive so they won't be on the hook for the disaster that is obviously coming. Same thing.

adam d. her name is Wafa Sultan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciOGS6r97oE

...and yes he can do that, if it's the truth. Any Arab who really wants peace has got to reach the point of being exasperated, or else I suspect he's lying to himself or his audience

But pragmatists avoid exasperation by having a plan b. If argument A doesn't work, try argument B. When that doesn't work, try C.

I get exasperated when I hear people refer to the need to be allied with "moderate" Saudi Arabia, but I always feel like there must be some way of making them see how wrong this is. There are a million reasons why this alliance is wrong, so there are a million new arguments to try.

Wafa Sultan isn't really a pragmatist, she's an idealist who doesn't mince words. She's great, but she's not convincing Arabs to change their ways.

However, she might be able to knock some sense into our idiot state department. She certainly respects western values more than they do.

> She's great, but she's not convincing
> Arabs to change their ways.

she's awesome.

but what is this pragmatist question? There's no reasonable and civilized reform option here. The Arabs need a revolution. Nothing less.

...but what is this pragmatist question? There's no reasonable and civilized reform option here. The Arabs need a revolution. Nothing less

The Arabs need a revolution and they think they're getting one with the Islamists. Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda give them a sense of importance and empowerment. People care about Muslims now. Without terrorists, no one would care about such a boring, backwards, static society.

That's not the revolution we want to see, but it's the only one they, as a group, seem to be choosing.

It would be possible for us to reform them the way we reformed fascists in Japan and Germany, but that would require that we simultaneously wage a total war against all of the states that support terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, the Sudan). A total war against these weak states would not be as horrific as WWII, since they don't have much of a military. Once the fascist influence is gone, a Marshall plan could work in the area.

But we'll never do that because our government would never wage war against the hub of world terrorism, Saudi Arabia. Our leaders have shown that they're willing to risk, and lose, thousands of American lives to preserve their 'friendship' with the Sauds.

Waging a war against Islamism without attacking Saudi Arabia is like fighting WWII while being allied with Hitler. It can't be won that way.

So, no revolution.

> Waging a war against Islamism without
> attacking Saudi Arabia is like fighting
> WWII while being allied with Hitler.

now look who's lost hope.

> The Arabs need a revolution and they
> think they're getting one with the Islamists

but you can't have it both ways. It can't be true both that most Arabs want peace and that they've chosen an Islamist revolution.

I suspect narrative B (they've chosen an Islamist revolution) is closer to the truth and narrative A (Most Arabs really want peace) is a handy bit of propaganda.

At a minimum, once you factor out all the particulars of one region vs. another and one country vs. another, Arabs have either chosen an Islamist revolution or have resigned themselves to one and aren't going to do anything about it.

now look who's lost hope

Not really. At this point there is no hope that there will be a revolution that will get rid of Islamism, stasis, slavery and ethnic cleansing in the Arab/Muslim world. But the terrorist infrastructure could be eliminated through more moderate means, like weakening the economies, the influence and the intelligence agencies of the states that support terrorism. Since our primary goal is to get rid of terrorist militias, that's probably all we should do.

It's worth investing the time and money to weaken terrorist states, but trying to change this culture shouldn't be our job. Yet we're the only ones who can do it. Arab/Muslim civilization has been stagnant and unproductive for hundreds of years, and that's not going to change, even if all the terrorist militias disappear tomorrow. Changing that would require a real revolution, the elimination of old regimes, old ways of doing things,old tribal customs - it's a hornets nest that has to be removed, all at once, completely. It would require a huge amount of time, money and effort, and it's not worth it for us.

We know that the Arabs aren't going to change things. Islamism is a huge step in the wrong direction, and they seem determined to follow that path (or to be led along it).

Israel and Lebanon are productive, but the Gulf states and Islamist Iran will be wastelands when the oil/terrorism money dries up. Hundreds of years from now, people will be looking at the farmers still using methods that haven't changed since 700AD, they'll look at the women still in hijabs and they'll still be saying that the Arab/Muslim world needs a revolution.

we're not so far apart. there are two pillars to my view:

1) the arabs will continue down this path of backwardness until it consumes them completely

2) the only thing Israel can do is manage risks (as you suggest - go after terrorist infrastructure and so on).

Every time a US envoy flies off to make peace, it only complicates risk management but doesn't bring peace any closer.

Similarly, these (false, imo) reports that the mass of Arabs really want peace also complicate risk management because they set up the familiar logical framework in which Israel is blamed for their radicalization.

If it were actually true, that would be one thing, but what is more likely true is that the Arabs are telling young and naive German college students exactly what they want to hear, probably just to be polite.

Anyway we agree, more or less, except about the pragmatism.

But Dr. Alrabaa isn't blaming Israel for Arab radicalization, he's blaming Hamas and Arab regimes for the problem. He's even quoting Arabs who blame Hamas - and he's written about the depravity of Saudi society.

Young German students want to hear that America and Israel are evil, and this is what they usually do hear. It's what American students hear at Columbia and NYU. If you haven't listened to the average Saudi-funded college professor speak lately, you have no idea how bad it is. Dr. Alrabaa is a total contrast to the average.

I concede, I have no idea what's happening on campuses.

I've listened in on a few Columbia U. 'teach in's'. It's pretty bad