Containing Arab Nationalism

Salim Yaqub · 2005

The Eisenhower administration, too, would worry about the proliferation of Nasserist ideology, especially its neutralist element. U.S. officials feared that Arab neutralism could ultimately result in a Soviet takeover of the Middle East or, failing that, in the denial to the West of the region’s strategic positions and oil reserves. It was in five Arab nations lying to Egypt’s east—Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon—that Nasserist influence would arouse the most vigorous and sustained controversy with the United States. Each of those nations would figure prominently in one or more of the political crises associated with the Eisenhower Doctrine.

Was USA was reacting to a Nasserite plague?

similar to how USA ringed Vietnam with dictatorships to react to the virus of nationalism?

https://thespectaclemag.substack.com/p/the-french-people-are-burning-the

the French have once again realised that asking nicely doesn't work.

Science is both an idealized method of inquiry and a fallible institutional process. Hence, we should trust an expert consensus based on the scientific method, but also should examine critically the extent to which there genuinely is such a consensus (or conversely an alleged dissensus), especially when civil liberties are infringed on scientific grounds. The more extreme the infringement, the more robust must be the scientific consensus supporting it, particularly on issues of health and safety.

We also therefore need to be aware that vested interests might distort or misrepresent the level of scientific consensus (in either direction) through means such as:

• Regulatory capture: When industries manipulate their regulators.
• Media monopolization: When a few corporations own all the major media.
• Astroturfing: When fake grassroots campaigns hide corporate agendas.
• Funding bias: When companies finance studies favorable to their profit motive.
• Gatekeeping: When qualified dissenters are marginalized ("No true expert").

If a significant minority of qualified experts opposes a public policy as being too harmful or risky, a favorable majority opinion might still justify implementation of the policy on a trial basis, but not to the point of seriously infringing civil liberties, such as by imposing on individuals an involuntary acceptance of substantial harm/risk. Even if the majority view claims that failure to implement the policy would itself be too harmful or risky, nonexperts should not (be expected to) have greater confidence in this or either opinion than do qualified experts who reject the view in good faith. Just as nonexperts are quite rightly considered incompetent to refute an expert consensus, they are likewise incompetent to adjudicate a scientific controversy, and in such circumstances should have the freedom, individually or democratically, to choose a precautionary or minimax approach, on the reasonable (but rebuttable) presumption that each side has a non-negligible possibility of being right.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/precautionary-principle

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minimax

Gaza and the Failure of International Justice | Norman Finkelstein’s Revelations

Israel’s national security concept is at a turning point that demands clarification. Since October 7, 2023, it has become evident that Israel’s security policy is, in practice, guided by a new security concept rather than the unwritten security doctrine that took shape over decades. (Despite its flaws, the earlier concept helped Israel become a prosperous regional power. Had it been properly implemented, it might have prevented the colossal failure of October 7, but that is for a state commission of inquiry to determine.) This new concept has not been formally articulated or presented to the public, nor is it bindingly defined within the defense establishment. In practice, however, its principles inform decision-making and dictate Israel’s approach to security.

[...]

Principles of the Emerging "New" Concept

The following principles can be inferred from the security policy now being implemented (they represent a subjective, theoretical and deliberately exaggerated interpretation):

1. Primacy of Jewish Identity over Democracy: The state’s Jewish identity takes precedence over its democratic system of government. This priority is intended to guarantee Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, even at the cost of eroding its democratic values. The state's Jewish identity rests on ethnic, religious, and national foundations, and is preserved through the inspiration of the Jewish spirit and tradition. This principle dictates the need to maintain the primacy of Jewish identity over other national identities (such as Arab-Islamic or Christian).
2. Peace as a Means Rather Than an End: The underlying assumption is that any arrangement with Arab actors is temporary and deceptive. Striving for peace would therefore repeat the mistake of the "conceptzia," the prevailing conceptual framework considered a primary cause of the October 7 disaster. A meaningful peace agreement is unattainable in the Middle East, as peace agreements are merely technical and temporary arrangements requiring constant reassessment. According to this view, peace is not an intrinsic value that generates security, but a means of achieving other policy objectives. Politically, "peace" is regarded as a naive concept representing the left-wing "peace camp" which stands in tension with, or in direct opposition to, "security," which represents the right-wing “security camp.”
3. Rejection of the Independent Existence of Arab States: The underlying premise is that most Arab states are not genuine nation-states, but collections of tribes and ethnic groups lacking a shared history and a foundational national vision. Consequently, undermining their stability is viewed as a natural process, one that Israel can manage more effectively than it can contend with strong nation-states, and one that it should even encourage.
4. War as a Foundational State: War is essential to national security and cannot be replaced by a state of peace, which, as noted, is merely a means rather than an end. "Silence is filth,"[1] and therefore its pursuit is an expression of weakness. According to this view, regarding war as a necessary evil to be avoided, along with the decades-long pursuit of arrangements and peace, are at the foundation of the mistake that led to October 7. War is necessary, and preventive war is preferable because it secures a significant achievement at the outset. Its intensity may vary with circumstances, but its constant presence is an asset to national security.
5. Self-Reliance and Severing Dependence on the United States: Israel’s national security rests solely on its own capabilities and does not require the backing of a specific great-power. Although important, the relationship with the United States is driven purely by interests. Furthermore, excessive adherence to restrictions imposed on Israel by a US administration is dangerous: The United States is a “declining power” and, given its ongoing social and political shifts, will soon abandon Israel in any event. Excessive dependence on the United States exposes Israel to the influence of a progressive American value system that is incompatible with Israel's Jewish character. Severing ties with the United States is therefore not only inevitable, but essential to Israel’s independence and the resilience of its Jewish national identity.
6. Absolute Priority for Initiative and Offense over Defense: Preemptive, surprise strikes are viewed as the only way to achieve victory, giving offense precedence over defense. If Israel cannot withstand a surprise attack or ensure reliable advance warning, the only conclusion is that it must pursue a proactive policy of preventive strikes and wars.
7. Forward Defense: In cases where a preemptive counterstrike is not feasible, or time is needed to prepare an offensive, establishing forward defense zones wherever possible becomes crucial. These zones provide defense-in-depth against terror armies, which destabilize their host states and weaken them relative to Israel. These spaces enable Israel to move the war into enemy territory as quickly as possible. There is no contradiction between forward defense and an offensive initiative, as it is effectively a deferred attack in which forward defense serves as a structural component of the offense.
8. Internalizing the Reality of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as a Permanent Israeli-Arab Conflict: According to this concept, the existence of a Palestinian national movement is an inauthentic Western narrative rooted in post-colonial guilt. The Palestinian struggle against Israel, and its periodic resurgence, constitutes yet another Arab attempt to fight and destroy the State of Israel. In practice, the depth of the conflict with the Palestinians and their non-recognition of Israel as a Jewish state form the basis for the view that no solution is possible. This leads to principled opposition to any political, geographic, or security separation between Israel and a Palestinian entity, and to the establishment of a Palestinian state. According to this view, security will be achieved by expanding settlement throughout the state’s territory, both within and beyond the "Green Line" (which is regarded as fictitious). Arab inhabitants of the Land of Israel who choose to remain in the Jewish state will be granted residency rights and local self-governance.
9. Settlement and Civilians as a Central Component of Security: This marks a return to the security principles of the "Yishuv" era (the period prior to statehood, when security was achieved through settlement on legally purchased land, and defense forces were decentralized and relied on local defense by civilians organized in voluntary paramilitary organizations [the underground militias]). In contemporary terms, security is not viewed as the exclusive responsibility of the security forces; rather, civilians are part of the defense network. Defense is established by creating communities and outposts in all areas of friction with the Arab population, in Judea and Samaria, and in security zones in Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. This deployment requires the IDF to implement the principles of preemptive attack and forward defense in practice, and further contributes to the destabilization of the "synthetic" Arab states.
10. Priority for Industrial-Defense Independence: Israel's defense economy is highly vulnerable to long supply chains; therefore, domestic production and investment in the defense-tech sector (defense industries, cyber, and artificial intelligence) must be prioritized over other sectors. Scientific research supporting technology is considered paramount, but should be advanced independently rather than through international collaborative frameworks such as "Horizon."

Critical Questions: Confronting the Foundational Principles of Israel's Traditional Security Concept

[read here]

Summary

The "new" security concept described above, while never anchored in an official document or approved through a formal procedure, is what has effectively guided key aspects of Israeli security policy since October 7, 2023. Its considerable influence stems precisely from its operation as an unwritten concept revealed through practice, rather than as a government’s declared policy. It is therefore essential to articulate it explicitly and subject its details and implications to public discussion. Only then can we determine whether it represents a necessary adaptation to the current and emerging security reality, or an expression of a fundamental, unchecked shift in the state’s identity.

Ketan Joshi breaks down how Big Tech’s bet on AI is single-handedly keeping the fossil fuel industry alive - while killing our dreams of a sustainable energy grid.

Noam Chomsky speaks about Cognitive Revolution - Part 1