"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
What is currently happening in the Middle East is merely a modified mutation of warfare, one suited to a more aware and cynical public. As Sun Tzu stated more than 2,000 years ago, the key in this - as with any kind of effective warfare - is deception.
In many cases, war also entails taking a high-stakes gamble.
The headlines in today's major newspapers have been buzzing with the latest collaboration and camaraderie between US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Analyses, news reports and editorials have claimed that this would be a "major gamble for the Israelis and a scam to the Palestinians," who once again have been handed the short end of a burning stick. But look, don't listen to me, I'm a biased Palestinian. Read the papers, judge for yourselves.
Sharon presented a plan to Bush - the "Disengagement Plan" or simply, the Sharon Plan - and Israel was given the huge, Texan "thumbs up" to impose a settlement of its choosing on the Palestinians. However, the sticking point that has several nations wriggling in consternation is that Bush has formalized this plan. This proposal is not something new and has been vaguely discussed. However, it is the first time it has been the official policy of the US.
In said plan, Sharon has requested backing for unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, acceptance for maintaining parts of the West Bank and the refusal of the Palestinians' right of return.
The request was officially granted, thank you very much, as Bush acted solo - not something new since his "election." And the rest of the world? The leader of the free world might as well have said: "Y'all just follow the leader, now."
And despite "the UN and Europe's criticism of Sharon and Bush's agreement," and Blair's "spurned plea to Bush," follow the leader they will.
According to The Guardian, this announcement by Bush has made Blair "uncomfortable." A Reuters' headline stated that Blair hopes this new Middle East plan will "change dynamics and build momentum toward a new peace deal."
Sure, refuse the Palestinians' right to return unless it's to a Palestinian state co-existing peacefully with Israel (which seems one of the least likely miracles on Earth), keep some four million of them as refugees in countless countries that don't want them (where they can't work, own homes or vote) and sure, you got yourself an air-tight peace deal, Blair.
It just really baffles me how a couple of men can have so much power to simply rearrange the world to suit their interests. Where is the public? Where is their voice?
Legal adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization Michael Tarazi said: "Imagine if Palestine said: 'Okay, we give California to Canada'."
Yeah, what then? You could be sure someone would speak up!
Meanwhile, speaking of warfare tactics on the opposite side of situation, Sun Tzu again comes to mind:
"If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them."
In his latest tape, which the CIA claims is more than likely authentic, businessman-cum-terrorist Osama bin Laden handed Europe a bizarre olive branch by saying that Al-Qaeda will spare those countries who "withdraw their troops from Arab lands and stop interfering with our affairs."
This strategy of divide and conquer, however, has been unanimously rejected and ridiculed.
According to a report by The Washington Post, "Maha Azzam, an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, said bin Laden and his aides likely concluded 'that something was paying off, that perhaps there was a real rift between the United States and Europe'."
Azzam added that bin Laden was "trying to create not only a wedge between the United States and Europe," but also was telling Europeans that "your politicians are not necessarily following your interests. They're ignoring problems that exist in Palestine and Israel and the Muslim world."
But wait, that has been going on for quite some time now. Just not in the West. Role reversal has now taken place. Whereas prior to the events of the previous few years, the Middle East was seen as a dangerous place to be, I have heard countless foreigners and natives now claiming otherwise.
One Spanish woman said to me: "It's safer to be here now than in Europe. They wouldn't hit Lebanon but in the West, although you don't know where is going to be hit next, it's a guarantee not a possibility."
Soon, however, I fear nowhere will be considered a possible target, but a guaranteed hit.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
What is currently happening in the Middle East is merely a modified mutation of warfare, one suited to a more aware and cynical public. As Sun Tzu stated more than 2,000 years ago, the key in this - as with any kind of effective warfare - is deception.
In many cases, war also entails taking a high-stakes gamble.
The headlines in today's major newspapers have been buzzing with the latest collaboration and camaraderie between US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Analyses, news reports and editorials have claimed that this would be a "major gamble for the Israelis and a scam to the Palestinians," who once again have been handed the short end of a burning stick. But look, don't listen to me, I'm a biased Palestinian. Read the papers, judge for yourselves.
Sharon presented a plan to Bush - the "Disengagement Plan" or simply, the Sharon Plan - and Israel was given the huge, Texan "thumbs up" to impose a settlement of its choosing on the Palestinians. However, the sticking point that has several nations wriggling in consternation is that Bush has formalized this plan. This proposal is not something new and has been vaguely discussed. However, it is the first time it has been the official policy of the US.
In said plan, Sharon has requested backing for unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, acceptance for maintaining parts of the West Bank and the refusal of the Palestinians' right of return.
The request was officially granted, thank you very much, as Bush acted solo - not something new since his "election." And the rest of the world? The leader of the free world might as well have said: "Y'all just follow the leader, now."
And despite "the UN and Europe's criticism of Sharon and Bush's agreement," and Blair's "spurned plea to Bush," follow the leader they will.
According to The Guardian, this announcement by Bush has made Blair "uncomfortable." A Reuters' headline stated that Blair hopes this new Middle East plan will "change dynamics and build momentum toward a new peace deal."
Sure, refuse the Palestinians' right to return unless it's to a Palestinian state co-existing peacefully with Israel (which seems one of the least likely miracles on Earth), keep some four million of them as refugees in countless countries that don't want them (where they can't work, own homes or vote) and sure, you got yourself an air-tight peace deal, Blair.
It just really baffles me how a couple of men can have so much power to simply rearrange the world to suit their interests. Where is the public? Where is their voice?
Legal adviser to the Palestinian Liberation Organization Michael Tarazi said: "Imagine if Palestine said: 'Okay, we give California to Canada'."
Yeah, what then? You could be sure someone would speak up!
Meanwhile, speaking of warfare tactics on the opposite side of situation, Sun Tzu again comes to mind:
"If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them."
In his latest tape, which the CIA claims is more than likely authentic, businessman-cum-terrorist Osama bin Laden handed Europe a bizarre olive branch by saying that Al-Qaeda will spare those countries who "withdraw their troops from Arab lands and stop interfering with our affairs."
This strategy of divide and conquer, however, has been unanimously rejected and ridiculed.
According to a report by The Washington Post, "Maha Azzam, an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, said bin Laden and his aides likely concluded 'that something was paying off, that perhaps there was a real rift between the United States and Europe'."
Azzam added that bin Laden was "trying to create not only a wedge between the United States and Europe," but also was telling Europeans that "your politicians are not necessarily following your interests. They're ignoring problems that exist in Palestine and Israel and the Muslim world."
But wait, that has been going on for quite some time now. Just not in the West. Role reversal has now taken place. Whereas prior to the events of the previous few years, the Middle East was seen as a dangerous place to be, I have heard countless foreigners and natives now claiming otherwise.
One Spanish woman said to me: "It's safer to be here now than in Europe. They wouldn't hit Lebanon but in the West, although you don't know where is going to be hit next, it's a guarantee not a possibility."
Soon, however, I fear nowhere will be considered a possible target, but a guaranteed hit.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
