they are not fighting under tribal flags. it is the flag of the future of humanity

NY Times Tom Friedman, has pointed out, in a lovely article, that Libya, like Iraq and other countries in the middle east, is a tribal society and not a homogeneous society, like Egypt or Tunisia. He expressed his doubts whether such societies can handle the transition to democracy without deteriorating to a civil war waged between the different tribes.

It is true that  Libya's struggle to freedom from Gaddafi's regime seems more like a tribal war than anything else. I believe it has more to do with the way Gaddafi ruled than any other aspect. One doesn't have to dig deep into Libya's distributions of resources. Fact is that Gaddafi's tribe of origin controls the most potent weapons. This is why external intervention was so critical.

But with all due respect to Tom Friedman, whose point regarding the risks of an ethnically diversified society is supported by political research, I believe he missed a major point -

1. All developed democratic countries can be described as tribes. Especially the United states, with its plural minorities, and clashing identities. The rules of engagement between rivaling tribes are determined by many factors, other than group identity. 
2. The one critical factor which sets these rules of engagement is whether people have another identity, other than their tribal one and  our modern world suggest this alternative, broader identity: Globalization. 

Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and modern communication are not playing a major role just for their technical efficiency. The citizens of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and other countries of the middle east have another emerging identity, which globalization has created.

They are all citizens of the world, and as the internet has given them tools to see what other citizens of the world get, they want their equal share - and justly so.

Only time will tell whether the Globalistic identity can rival the Tribal identity. But if people in ethnically diversified societies of the developed world have been able to form a higher shared identity, there is no reason people all over the world cannot do just that.

Instead of calling the United States of America to fold into its own affairs, I believe movers and shakers of public opinion, of the caliber of Tom Friedman, should call for a different route: Barack Obama's personal biography can be a pattern for the world to follow. Obama can be the first person to be identified as a true leader of the world, thanks to his complicated, multi-cultured identity. He can raise the flag of Humanity, for all to follow.

As I've written elsewhere, The U.S does not have to intervene military-wise everywhere. But its moral sound must be heard.

middle east is bubbling further

The flow of events in the middle east is overwhelming. One tends to forget that only on January 15th have protests taken a real change, as Tunisian demonstrators were able to drive their leader away. Since then real changes have been seen within Tunisia  and Egypt, and it seems that Libya is next. 

Now Yemen appears to be the next domino piece to join regimes falling under the pressure of the people, and even Syria appears to be having difficulty handling protesters, despite its bloody notoriety.   

Of all regimes, it appears that only Hamas has finally found a solution to the protests it was unable to completely hush. Israel is a very convenient scapegoat, and sadly, it appears the Israeli side is playing along into Hamas' hands. 

Arab league is worried because of coalition actions

Sometimes one has to scratch one's head in a bewildered manner.

Arab Leauge's Secretary-General Amr Moussa called for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya. He explained:

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians".

I've written in the past about the extreme difficulty of waging war in a populated area. One has to wonder whether Secretary Moussa is speaking his thoughts, or trying to keep the Arab Leauge in a bizarre neutral placement, shortly after calling the developed world for the imposing of a no-fly zone and protection of citizens. Arab countries could have taken this duty upon their own shoulders. But it is much easier to ask for someone's help, and then criticize his quality of work.

Happily, it seems that the common person of the street is not confused. Ha'aretz quoted Mohamed Abdel Motaleb, a bank employee in Cairo, :

"It is now clear and understandable that Arab people want to get rid of their leaders, so leaders should simply leave and not fight their people and force foreign nations to interfere... I am very much against foreign troops fighting in Libya, but Arab leaders should not let that happen through their stubborness and refusal to quit power".

May Mr. Motaleb's wise words ring and fill the world with their inner truth.

Helen Thomas: The White House is in the pockets of Israel

Helen Thomas to Playboy: the White House is in the pockets of the Israelis.

I'm an Israeli. What can I say ?

I only wish it was true.

Political life would have been so much simpler.

I read some claim that Helen Thomas is not anti-Semite. Just Anti-Israel.

Wishing for the Jews to return to the lands of slaughter of Europe, where they have been persecuted during most of civilization's memory (starting way back at Rome's age), sounds like a rather anti-Semite wish in my eyes.

Furthermore, when someone portrays the world in colors which make the Israelis/Jews sound like the most powerful, able, successful humans around, you can guess he is anti-Semite.

You don't to have to agree straight away. But before leaving for your own thoughts, please read this old joke, and bear it in mind, when you read Helen Thomas' words:

Isaac is reading a newspaper on a park bench.

His friend Moses sees him and says:

"Isaac, why are you reading that anti-Semitic newspaper?"

"Mo, I like to read good things about the Jews."

"Good things?"

"Certainly. It says right here that we Jews control the banks,

Jews control the newspapers,

Jews control the government and all Jews are rich.

So what could be bad?"

(this version is taken from Zionism-Israel.com)

Hamas in Gaza intentionally escalating. why ?

Hamas has apparently chosen to escalate the ongoing war with Israel, and as always has found a willing partner in Israeli leadership.

There can be many explanations why Hamas chose to initiate another round. Here is a short list of my suspected reasons. It might be that more than one is correct -

• It might has to do with the recent arrest of a senior Hamas electricity engineer by Israel (in rather unclear circumstances, due to gag order, but the irregularities imply something of significance ).
• It might has to do with Hamas' realization that the IDF's technological superiority has changed the rules of the game, and this escalation is an attempt to re-balance.
• It might has to do with the recent interception by Israel of a huge weapons arms from Iran to Hamas. This was not simple shipment, and was aimed at changing the balance of powers between Israel and Hamas.
• It might has to do with the realization that following the massacre of jewish children in Itamar, the rules of the game have changed and Netanyahu's regime is operating under a different clock.
• It might be an attempt to distract public opinion in Gaza from the corruption discovered among Hamas leaders.
• It might has to do with Hamas' assessment of the impacts of the Middle East's age of revolutions on its status.
• It might has to do something with the ongoing demonstrations calling for a unity leadership for palestinians.

No Fly Zone in place at libya - at last

The No Fly Zone is finally set over Libya. And not a minute too soon.

Two small remarks regarding this new reality:

(a) seems like U.S president, barak Obama, is still hard at work, trying to persuade the world this is not an only U.S operation. Seems like someone should have told him that -

1. As far as the extremists of the Arab world are concerned, there is no significant difference between other "western" European powers and the United States. Worse (from Obama's perspective), the image of the strength of the United States of America in the eyes of the masses of the Arab-Muslim world (as masses in other places in the world), is held in such high regard, that it is not the role of the U.S armed forces in the save-Libya's-citizens-from-its-mad-tyrant coalition, that is being taken into account. The U.S is just too conspicuous to hide somewhere in the back of the coalition class photo.
2. Even if anyone in the world will accept Europe's role in the coalition as more significant than the U.S role, once the developed world has chosen to intervene in one arab country where rebelling citizens were slaughtered by the army of the dictator, the question of "why only there" will be heard, louder and louder as time passes. And justly so.

(b) The timing of the formation of the coalition and the beginning of the strikes must not be ignored. Especially not if we wish that the current rally for freedom in the middle east shall not end like another prague spiring. If indeed all developed countries entered the coalition in clear hands and conscience, then the extreme difficulty of getting the world to agree on an action, and the poor timing which almost came to coming after the bell has rung (or more accurately, the rebels all slaughtered), this combination has got to initiate the process of the establishment of a world armed forces, aimed at intervensions when governments kill their own citizens, and prevent peaceful demonstrations. I've already taken the liberty recently, in the name of the ideals that are being fought for in the middle east at this age, to dream about unrealistic options made real. The idea of a world armed forces has probably even a lesser chance of becoming a reality, for everybody knows that this Chekhov's gun will be required to do something about the persian gulf.

Will Libya be another Prague Spring ?

As the days go by, it becomes clearer and clearer, thar the world is not going to help the under-armed rebels in Libya, and will let Gadafi's forces retake the country. The ongoing delay in the decision-making will mean that even if&and when the United Nations decides on enforcing a no-fly zone over libya, there will be no more rebels left to use it for freeing their country. As I'm writing, the last major stronghold of the rebels, Benghazi, is becoming the focus of Gadafi's forces.

One has to wonder what this will mean to the other revolutions of the middle east. This weekend, a constitutional referendum will most probably be held at Egypt, to determine initial changes in Egypt's promised but tough path to democracy. What will be the fate of democratization in Egypt, if its neighbouring tyrant remains at his throne, having butchered at his rebelling citizens ?

One cannot help but fear that the Libyan revolt might end as another tragic Prague Spring.

If indeed the revolutionaries in Libya will fail, what will become of the other peoples of the Arab world seeking freedom ?

Considering the rough steps taken in other places in the Arab world against protests as all the tyrants unite in their struggle against their own people, one has to be pessimistic.

This is the last call for the developed world to take sides and help people who fight for their rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Is it going to be another historical missed milestone ?