April 21, 2011

Bahrain v. Libya

Back in the winter, I wrote VDARE columns about, first, Bahrain and then Libya, pointing out how both regimes imported immigrant mercenaries to keep down the people. Since then, the U.S. has started a war with Libya, but the U.S. has looked the other way while Bahrain's government, and Saudi tanks, have violently repressed protests in that Persian Gulf kingdom. 

There are a lot of differences between the countries, but one is that Bahrain's monarchy is much more sophisticated about how to spin the symbolism of the 21st Century Globalist Empire game than is Gaddafi, who thought Berlusconi was a major player to cozy up to. 

From Israel's leading newspaper, Haaretz, a story on the lady who has been Bahrain's ambassador to Washington for the last three years:
Meet Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, Bahrain's Jewish U.S. ambassador

40 comments:

Another Anon said...

So we are bombing Libya, which is run by a Jew (at least that's what the rebels call him), but we're not intervening in Bahrain, because they appointed a Jew as an ambassador?

Anthony said...

I'm not sure Gaddhafi thought that Italy was particularly a major player, but rather than Berlusconi was a bird of a feather - an old man who uses wealth and power to surround himself with hot young women.

Tom in Va said...

Don't forget that in addition to their embassies, most foreign governments--and some non-state actors like the Iraqi Kurds or the "Republika Srpska" in Bosnia--have their own lobbyists in DC. Check out www.fara.gov for the very interesting database of registered foreign agents. The Libyan rebels have one, too.

Anonymous said...

Love how the article notes Bahrain has only 36 Jewish citizens.

RE:Libya,

Anyone else wonder why the media have failed to mention the sainted Nelson Mandela's love for the demonic Gaddafi?

Who need democracy if your progressive? said...

Who knew there was still a Jewish community in Bahrain (or any other Arab country for that matter).

Interesting facts:

* Mrs. Nonoo was not only the only Jewish member of Bahrain's Parliment, but the only woman too - very progressive.

* Mrs. Nonoo, her husband and son make up approximately 10% of Bahrain's Jewish population.

* She was not elected by the people but instead appointed by the King

The King's shrewd decision may have just given him a free hand to genocide the majority Shia pro-democracy protesters if need be.

Anonymous said...

It's pure geopolitics Steve.
Yes, Gaddafi happens to be a complete arse whom nasty little opportunists and bullies like Cameron and Sarkozy saw as an easy target to kick in the nuts when he was down and in thorogh bully-boy style big themselves up by beating on someone much weaker who cannot fight back.
Also Berlusconi in true Italian style dumped his erstwhile ally when things got to hot for him (now, when did that happen before?, 1914, 1941.., ethnic sterotypes are 'untrue'.As an aside Steve, itailans in the USA might have a reputation for 'toughness', but in Europe, unfortunately they have a reputation for faithlessness and duplicity).
Anyhow Bahrain, nasty little dictatorship that it is, is a loyal American ally with a naval base to boot.Plus the fact that Bahrain is best pals with a certain other nasty little dictatorship, a dictatorship that oppresses a mass population something rotten, but happens to hold half the world's oil deposits.
With oil at $120+ a barrel and gold at $1500 an ounce, the impression that Cameron & Co foled up, cannot be ignored.

Anonymous said...

In what world is Haaretz "Israel's leading newspaper"?
More like Israel's most hated newspaper.

dearieme said...

"an MBA from the International University of Europe in Watford": you what? Hee, hee, hee, hee, hee. Pull the other one, guv.

Chicago said...

Our own McCain just snuck into a rebel held area of Libya and declared them to be his "heros". Just some time back he said "we are all Georgians today" after they had initiated a military clash with the Russians.
Has this cretin ever seen a war he didn't like? Or an illegal alien he didn't want amnesty for?
It was either him or Obama in '08. The American public sure didn't stand a chance.

none of the above said...

It's fascinating to watch the misadventure in Libya, where essentially all the concerns raised by people opposed to getting involved seem to be coming true. What the f--k were the decisionmakers thinking? I assume it was looking at the polls, the time to the next election, and a hoped for quick victory to make them look strong and decisive.

Bahrain is different because they host a critical us naval base. The ethnicity of their ambassador is probably not a big deal compared to that.

Half Sigma said...

Bahrain lets us base our ships there, they don't hate Jews so much that they aren't willing to appoint a Jewish ambassador to win favor with us (which indicates progressive thinking, Iran would NEVER have a Jewish ambassador), why would any sensible foreign policy not support Bahrain?

Crawfurdmuir said...

Very interesting, but still there is a bigger difference between Bahrain and Libya - Libya has been an overt sponsor of terrorism against the West (Lockerbie) while Bahrain has not.

Wandrin said...

I think Bahrain is simply about the 5th fleet and oil.

Makes a nice change :)

Unlucky for the local shias.

ATBOTL said...

I find it disgusting how the English language media uses quaint euphemisms when describing the Arab regimes that our corrupt elites prop up. The leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are "kings" rather than dictators. Their governments are "autocratic" rather than totalitarian.

Anonymous said...

Crawfurdmuir,
Gaddafi fessed up and promised to be a good little boy, he put the 'Keith Moon' past behind him and kissed and cuddled Tony Blair.

josh said...

Re McCain in Libya:Come on Ghaddafi,just lay one right in there,you can do it! He didnt bring Joe Leiberman along?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps it would have been better for the West if we just ignored what was happening in Libya and had let Gadaffi swiftly mop all resistance and re-impose his rule.
My point is that we are seeing massive and serious unrest all over the Arab world.Syria is in a state of crisis, as is Yemen and the Saudis must be seriously worried that the contagion will strike them next.
With oil north of $120 per barrel, the spread of unrest can only damage the west.Snuffing out revolutionaries in Libya would have signalled to many wannabes (as opposed to Wahabees), that their efforts would be vain and foolhardy.Victory to the rebels will only serve to embolden them.

On another note despite all the soun and fury of Gadaffi's 'Keith Moon' style antics (nothinh more than the odd judicious loud explosion), the influence of Saudi's Wahabees in fprmenting terrorism and islamism across the globe pale into insignificance.

resistenzanazionale said...

Also Berlusconi in true Italian style dumped his erstwhile ally when things got to hot for him (now, when did that happen before?, 1914, 1941.., ethnic sterotypes are 'untrue'.As an aside Steve, itailans in the USA might have a reputation for 'toughness', but in Europe, unfortunately they have a reputation for faithlessness and duplicity).

In 1914, the northeast part of Italy was occupied by austrian empire, and not after, but before the war, Italy choose the other side because the people couldn't understand to stay togheter an empire that was occupiyng our lands.
In the WWII, well, you know Hitler and was a strange war to judge a country bahaviour.
For Libya, yes it was better to stay along Gheddafi and to bomb Paris, but this is a real world.
After the first few days of the uprising in Libya: all the fake news, like the famous one of the 10.000 people killed by Gheddafi and the bombing against the rebels in the streets of Tripoli, was impossible for a government to defend Gheddafi. And after, was impossible not to stay along France, because you need to stay very near who want your oil.
And sorry, but UK also had a solid bond with Gheddafi...

resistenzanazionale said...

Gaddafi, who thought Berlusconi was a major player to cozy up to.

But you forget Putin, why Russia didn't use her veto power? You forget, that Libya is in front of our coast, and it's normal, because you are in very far, and it's necessary for us, to have a link to Libya in the future. Wathever her government will be.

DYork said...

Half Sigma said...
Bahrain ... they don't hate Jews so much that they aren't willing to appoint a Jewish ambassador to win favor with us..


By "us" you mean your fellow Jews, right? Why would the other 98% of America who are merely goyim need a Jewish ambassador from Bahrain?

josh said...
Re McCain in Libya...He didnt bring Joe Leiberman along?


McCain has had Lieberman's forearm up his butt for years. Two very creepy old men.

none of the above said...

ATBOTL:

Yeah, isn't it remarkable how all the respectable, mainstream media sources in the US perform almost exactly like propaganda organs in our wars? Why, it's almost enough to get you looking for non-mainstream, outside-the-US sources of news, just to make yourself harder to lie to.

25,000 Persian Jews can't be wrong... Iran is progressive too said...

Half Sigma said...

Bahrain lets us base our ships there, they don't hate Jews so much that they aren't willing to appoint a Jewish ambassador to win favor with us (which indicates progressive thinking, Iran would NEVER have a Jewish ambassador), why would any sensible foreign policy not support Bahrain?


More Jewish Persians choose to stay and live in Iran than any place else in the world save for Israel and the US. From wiki they sound far more progressive and tolerant than Bahrain (save for the token ambassador appointment):

Conditions

The Constitution of Iran says that Jews are equal to Muslims. Imam Khomeini visited with members of the Jewish community and issued a decree ordering the adherents of Judaism and other revealed religions to be protected. Jews are entitled to self-administration and one member of the 290-seat Majlis is elected by only Jews. Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Tehran has over 20 synagogues. Iran has one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world. The hospital has received donations from top Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad. Kosher butcher shops are available in Iran. There are Hebrew schools and coeducation is allowed.[62]

Jews are conscripted into the Army like all Iranian citizens. Many Iranian Jews fought during the Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988) as drafted soldiers. About 15 were killed.[63] It has been reported that Jews in Iran are proud of their heritage. Thus, they have not settled in Israel despite being encouraged by some groups.[62]

...(anti-Iran US State Dept report here)...

The Association of Tehrani Jews said in a statement, "We Iranian Jews condemn claims of the US State Department on Iranian religious minorities, announced that we are fully free to perform our religious duties and we feel no restriction on performing our religious rituals." [64] The U.S. Government was accused of trying to create tension in Iran.

In spite of the many allegations about discrimination by the US state department, the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that mass emigration to the USA is due to economic reasons and not to religious persecution.[65]

Anonymous said...

Gadaffi is not Jewish. It's very unlikely a man from a tribe of backward nomads would have Jewish ancestry.

Whiskey said...

Actually Steve, you're leaving out some important details. Like Bahrain is the home of the US Naval Forces Central Command. Or that Bahrain is the object of Iranian desire. Or that the Saudis over US objections just rolled into Bahrain itself over fears of Iranian influence.

The world is bigger, wider, and more complex than just "America bad, foreigners good" mentality.

Whiskey said...

Dyork -- Like driving your car? Like gas at "only" $4 a gallon? How about $10 a gallon? Iran wants that price, our ability to prevent it DEPENDS on projecting power in the Persian Gulf. A policy from FDR, to Truman, to Ike, to JFK, to LBJ, to Nixon, Ford, and Jimmy CARTER! for crying out loud. EVEN Carter promulgated the Carter Doctrine which reserves the use of force in the Gulf to prevent hostile powers from dominating its oil.

Iran is hostile. That makes us interested in the anti-Iranian Bahraini royal family, as corrupt and autocratic as they may be. Which is the fatal flaw in Steve's reasoning.

Whiskey said...

Steve's reasoning, common among Libertarian types, is that a proper "moral" stance that is consistent is a "leader proof" way of conducting foreign affairs, making the US able to afford idiot leaders because the iron law of agreed upon consistent "morality" trumps stupid behavior.

Well, it does not. It never HAS. Ike makes the point that the US wrote off the Philippines, and our forces there, at the start of WWII because only by propping up England and Russia could we stave off defeat. Practical considerations of limited US power, a dangerous and chaotic world, make realpolitik not moral authority (ironically what Obama advocates toothlessly) the only way out for the US.

Whiskey said...

Or, to put it another way, the US is not all powerful, has limited resources (Ike stressed that a lot in Crusade in Europe) and cannot do everything.

Is Libya a cock-up? Sure. America had a chance, early on, to ally itself with the weak Libyan rebels who were non-Islamic, push over the tottering Khadaffi, and have conveniently access to lots of high quality oil. A hedge against the Gulf.

Another Anon said...

"(which indicates progressive thinking, Iran would NEVER have a Jewish ambassador), why would any sensible foreign policy not support Bahrain?"

Iran has a Jew in its national assembly, Jews are protected by its constitution, and it has the second largest Jewish community in the Middle East, after Israel.

Bahrain isn't "progressive" at all. They're just pragmatic. If you don't understand the problem with backing unpopular dictators in the Mideast, look at what happened in Iran in 1979.

Anonymous said...

"Gadaffi is not Jewish. It's very unlikely a man from a tribe of backward nomads would have Jewish ancestry."

Why not? That's where the Jews got their start, as a tribe of backward nomads.

Anonymous said...

It's very unlikely a man from a tribe of backward nomads would have Jewish ancestry.

-Anonymous


Uh...

Have you, by chance, ever read the Torah?

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons I have a soft-spot for Gaddafi is this:

Many, many, moons ago, when Gaddafi was still an international pariah, the esteemed veteran BBC journalist was granted the rare privelege of an audience with Gaddafi to be held in Gaddafi's tent.Both men sat cross-legged on the carpetted floor, and the 'interview' lasted for hours - you know the predictable thing - rants, ravings, quotations from the 'little Green Book', pearls of wisdom and philosophy etc.But this time there was a difference.Gaddafi, no doubt suffereing from a bout of indigestion, as we all do sometimes, kept continuosly and unashamedly breaking wind loudly thoughout the session, to his own secret amusement and John Simpson's discomfort.You see Gaddafi was expressing his real opinion of Britain and the BBC in a manner in which words could not express.

International Jew said...

Steve,
I checked with my rabbi and my local AIPAC branch, and they assured me that, contrary to appearances, the International Jewish Conspiracy for World Domination is not behind Bahrain's apparent immunity from American intervention on behalf of the pro-democracy movement. Nor behind Yemen's, Syria's or Iran's.
Conspiratorially yours,
IJ

International Jew said...

It's very unlikely a man from a tribe of backward nomads would have Jewish ancestry.
-Anonymous


Uh...
Have you, by chance, ever read the Torah?


Sorry to say, boys, but "Uh..." is right. Kaddafi is descended from Abraham's first son's second wife's tent-darner's brother-in-law's camel-tender's concubine who he met at an early AIPAC convention.

David Davenport said...

Ike makes the point that the US wrote off the Philippines, and our forces there, at the start of WWII because only by propping up England and Russia could we stave off defeat.

The USA "the US wrote off" the Philippines? No. That statement is wrong, factually false.

It is true, as a practical, pragmatic mater, that American forces were unable to retake the Philippine Islands until 1944 after the Japanese surprise attack of December 1941. However, from early 1942 on, liberation of The P. Islands was promised and intended. Dugout or Bugout Doug MacArthur wasn't the only American bigwig ardent to do so.

One might also debate whether or not Hitler's Germany was ever capable of defeating the USA. I don't think that the Third Reich could have done so. Note that the USA did not need to import much oil or much of anything else back then, except for perhaps natural rubber from the Far East.

Propping up Stalin's regime might have been a mistake also. I think I'll save that debate for later posts. Saving the USSR was one of the pet issues of the _____ American Left back then.

Whiskey's parents or grandparents probably taught him that the USSR saved the USA from Hitler.

Truth said...

"Sure. America had a chance, early on, to ally itself with the weak Libyan rebels who were non-Islamic"

Non-Islamic rebels...in Libya...right. What were they fighting for, lower prices on camel feed?

Anonymous said...

John Simpson being the good public school* boy that he is, was no doubt more than steeled up to beat Gaddafi at any farting contest or flatulence related hi-jinks.
You see farting contests, 'ritualized flatulence' - jolly-japes and games related thereof along with pederasty, bullying, sadism , furtive masturbation plus 'being good at games' are all hallmarks of any decent public school education, and the same could be said of that other august British institution, formerly envied and admired around the world, the Royal Navy.


*No, not yer state funded mexican free-for-all in California, but a highly expensive 'ancient' boarding school of the type that made England great.
As Wellington said, "Waterloo?..., that was won on the playing fields of Eton".

CJ said...

Berlusconi had a problem. Hordes of migrants were entering Italy from north Africa. Bad news migrants too, mostly black Africans along with some Arab and Berber Muslims. To ameliorate the problem, he essentially bribed Qaddafi to stop the migrant transit and, while he was at it, cut a few deals for Italian companies and build a natural gas pipeline from Libya to Italy.

Apparently all that cost about $5 billion. Benefits: majorly reduced illegal immigration, an additional source of energy (handy when Putin cuts off his pipelines) and good deals for connected companies. No need to send in any troops, take the case to the UN, or call on the European Union for action (excuse the sarcasm). What's not to like? Wouldn't this be a better world if the USA had a leader with as much ability as Berlusconi?

Steve Johnson said...

Truth said...

[whiskey] "Sure. America had a chance, early on, to ally itself with the weak Libyan rebels who were non-Islamic"

Non-Islamic rebels...in Libya...right. What were they fighting for, lower prices on camel feed?


Truth vs whiskey and Truth comes off the clear winner.

I think we've now firmly established the hierarchy of the worthless commenters at isteve.

A Tragedy Wasted said...

I thought Western interventionist had their fig leaf this weekend when I saw the headline "120 Protesters Shot in Middle East".

The details in the story were perfect for a propaganda campaign to justify our rather curious Libyan non-intervention intervention.

Dictator for life leader with long history of terrorist activity crushes reform-minded protestors.
Young idealistic unarmed student protesters being shot in public. Protesters being hunted down. Protesters being killed in custody.

Unfortunately the country was Syria, not Libya.

Since hundreds of innocent unarmed protesters have been slaughtered in Syria vs none that I've heard of in Libya, does this mean McCain will sneak into Damascus to sing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Syria" now?

Truth said...

"I think we've now firmly established the hierarchy of the worthless commenters at isteve."

I will wear that title with honor, and do all that I can to fullfull the responsibilities bestowed by up throughout the my reign over next year...