But Israel has even less control over its own destiny than Portugal or Britain do. The main reason is that, unlike those countries, Israel refuses to give up its empire. Israel is unable to sustain its imperial ambitions in the West Bank, or even to articulate them coherently. Having allowed its founding ideology to carry it relentlessly and unthinkingly into what Gershom Gorenburg calls an "Accidental Empire" of radical religious-nationalist settlements that openly defy its own courts, Israel is politically incapable of extricating itself. The partisan battles engendered by its occupation of Palestinian territory render it less and less able to pull itself free. It is immobilised, pinned down, in a conflict that is gradually killing it. Countries facing imperial twilight, like Britain in the late 1940s, are often seized by a sense of desperate paralysis. For over a decade, the tone of Israeli politics has been a mix of panic, despair, hysteria and resignation.

No one bears greater responsibility for the trap Israel finds itself in today than Mr Netanyahu. As prime minister in the late 1990s, he did more than any other Israeli leader to destroy the peace process. Illegal land grabs by settlers were tolerated and quietly encouraged in the confused expectation that they would aid territorial negotiations. Violent clashes and provocations erupted whenever the peace process seemed on the verge of concrete steps forward; the most charitable spin would be that the Israelis failed to exercise the restraint they might have shown in retaliating against Palestinian terrorism, had they been truly interested in progress towards a two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu believed that the Oslo peace agreements were a mirage, and his government's actions in the late 1990s helped make it true.

Having trapped themselves in a death struggle with Palestinians that they cannot acknowledge or untangle, Israelis have psychologically displaced the source of their anxiety onto a more distant target: Iran. An Iranian nuclear bomb would not be a happy development for Israel. Neither was Pakistan's, nor indeed North Korea's. The notion that it represents a new Holocaust is overstated, and the belief that the source of Israel's existential woes can be eliminated with an airstrike is mistaken. But Iran makes an appealing enemy for Israelis because, unlike the Palestinians, it can be fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite.

Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave President Obama a copy of the book of Esther, which will be read in synagogues this week in observance of Purim. Esther tells the story of a Persian government that tries and fails to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian Empire. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu saw this as an occasion to generalize about Persians (or, as we call them today, Iranians). He told Obama, "Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out."

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that an Arab or Iranian leader of Muslim faith met with President Obama and told him about some part of the Koran that alludes to conflict between Muhammad and Jewish tribes. For example, according to Muslim tradition, the Jewish tribe known as the Qurayzah, though living in Muhammad's town of Medina, secretly sided with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. Suppose this Muslim said to Obama, "Then, too, the Jews were bent on destroying Muslims." What would our reaction be?

I think reactions would vary. Some people would say, "See, the Koran teaches Muslims to hate Jews!" Some would say, "Wow, this Muslim is looking really, really hard for reasons to keep hating Jews, isn't he?"

That second point, at least, would have some merit. After all, the Muslim could just as easily have pointed to parts of the Koran that say nice things about Jews--such as the part that says that God, in his "prescience," chose "the children of Israel ... above all peoples." Or the part that says that God "sent down the Torah" as "guidance to the people" and now had sent down the Koran "confirming what was before it."

By the same token, Netanyahu could choose to emphasize a part of the Hebrew Bible that depicts Persians in a more flattering light. For example, the part that calls Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, the "messiah" because he delivered the exiled Israelites back to their home. (Yes, the only non-Hebrew called messiah in the entire Hebrew Bible is a Persian!)

But another contingent of lawyers had turned up to argue on behalf of Egyptians who they said had been harmed by the activities of the nonprofit groups, which officials of the military-led government have charged with stirring unrest in the Egyptians. They shouted back accusations the defendants and their supporters were agents of the United States.

As though to complete the sense of a climactic unleashing of pent-up bad feeling between the two longtime allies, another group of protesters outside the courthouse chanted for the United States to release from prison Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian jailed for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Some here have argued he should be released in a prisoner swap for the Americans on trial in the case.

American diplomats, Egyptian lawyers and others involved said the efforts to resolve the case had foundered amid a breakdown in the lines of authority within the military-led transitional government in the final months before the generals have pledged to leave power. American officials say they have tried to find Egyptian counterparts who might intercede, but Egyptian leaders say they cannot intervene in the judicial process.

If the case is not resolved, Congress and the Obama administration have vowed to cut off the $1.55 billion in annual aid to Egypt, potentially rupturing the three-way alliance among Washington, Cairo and Jerusalem that has been a linchpin of regional stability.

...
There is no dispute that the two groups and their staffs have broken the letter of Egyptian law. Both groups sought, but never received, licenses from the Egyptian government, and both are openly financed from abroad. They therefore violate two restrictions on civil groups left over from government of Hosni Mubarak, the strongman president who was deposed a year ago. But both groups have been tolerated here for years, along with scores of Egyptian nonprofit groups that also break both rules.

..

But the case has continued to move forward, and the American threats to cut off aid have set off a new wave of Egyptian nationalism.

We’re just over a year past the beginning of the uprisings in Libya that ultimately produced (along with, of course, NATO’s intervention) Muammar Qaddafi’s ouster. And there are now increasing calls for some form of military intervention in Syria. As such, this seems like an important time to evaluate the aftermath of NATO’s intervention in Libya, and how it intersects with American interests.

Essentially, there is a dearth of information publicly available about the state of affairs in Libya, but we nonetheless know a number of facts unambiguously:

The TNC has yet to establish its authority within Tripoli. However well-meaning its endeavors may be, they are not being executed or enforced outside a very small geographic area.
The overwhelming majority of the country is ruled by local militias under commanders with no accountability or common code of conduct.

Several towns (including Zintan, Misrata, and Benghazi) are dominated by local warlords who have power equal to, or greater than, the capital. Indeed, the emergence of a western council in the Nafusa Mountains that directly opposes the TNC is a testament to its weakness.

Qaddafi loyalists (more tribal than ideological in nature) have successfully retaken Bani Walid, and have not been displaced.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group is well established in parts of Tripoli and Derna. Its rise is directly correlated to attacks against Sufi shrines, and the movement of foreign volunteers going to fight in Syria.

There has been a rash of ongoing retaliatory ethnic and tribal fighting against communities perceived to be pro-Qaddafi, most notably Tuaregs, Berbers, and black Africans.

The influx of weaponry and returning Tuareg mercenaries after Qaddafi’s fall has helped to destabilize a not-inconsiderable part of Mali. Violent incidents occurring in Algeria, Niger, and Tunisia have also been traced back to Libya.

She actually makes the argument that American military bases build other nations and claims that somehow the French economic problems of the 1970s have some connection to their booting American troops out a decade earlier. This is the land of sheer insanity. I can't quite decide if the stupid git actually believes this, or is just an utter whore for the most lunatic fringe of the Imperialist wing of the American NeoCon movement. that dreams of real empire.

This all an argument that the US should continue to have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (and bizarrely claims African countries have foregone growth for lack of American bases...).

Lunacy.

An Egyptian army delegation visiting Washington abruptly cancelled meetings with senior American lawmakers on Monday as US government officials warned the country’s $1.5bn aid package was in jeopardy.

Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the US Senate armed services committee, were among a number of congressional leaders scheduled to meet the Egyptian military representatives in the coming week.
 
But the delegation was recalled home after 19 US citizens, including Sam LaHood, the son of the US transportation secretary, were referred by the Egyptian authorities for criminal trial on charges of operating civil society groups without permission and receiving unauthorised foreign funding.

Cairo’s decision to try US citizens has put in doubt $1.5bn of US aid after a warning from Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, at the weekend. “We will have to closely review these matters as it comes [to the] time for us to certify whether or not any of these funds from our government can be made available under these circumstances,” she said.

The Obama administration repeated its warning on Monday. “We have underscored how serious a problem these actions are. We have said clearly that these actions could have consequences for our relationship, including regarding our assistance programs,” said Jay Carney, White House spokesman.

Under the budget approved by Congress for this year, Egypt is to receive $1.3bn in military aid and $250m in economic aid. However, allocation of the military aid requires the secretary of state to certify that Egypt is supporting the transition to a civilian government, including holding fair elections and ensuring freedom of speech.

Opposition to aid for Egypt continues to grow. On Friday, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator who chairs the subcommittee on foreign aid, said: “We want to send a clear message to the Egyptian military that the days of blank cheques are over.”

More than 40 members of Congress signed a letter sent to both the Obama administration and the Egyptian military council warning that it would be difficult to maintain aid in “the absence of a quick and satisfactory resolution to this issue”.

Rabab al-Mahdi, an Egyptian political analyst, said the ruling generals appeared to be involved in a game of brinkmanship with the US but that it was unlikely they would allow the aid to be cut. She said that for the moment they seemed to be playing to nationalist sentiments in a country deeply suspicious of US intentions in the region. ...“I think what we are seeing is part of a populist campaign on the part of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in which they take extreme positions against the US and foreign powers. It feeds into the propaganda [they have been spreading] about foreign plots to destroy Egypt.”

Two groups were targets of an Egyptian investigation into their role in supporting opposition to President Hosni Mubarak before he fell from power last February. “Data was collected about the activities of the American Embassy through the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute,” Mr. Mubarak’s former intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, said in a deposition.

But Paul J. Sullivan, a Middle East expert at Georgetown University who has long studied the Egyptian military, cautioned against interpreting the criminal charges as a result merely of high-level machinations. He said Egyptians of all affiliations are wary of undue influence from the United States, which they view as having propped up the Mubarak regime for many years.

“I understand the purpose of the N.D.I. and I.R.I.,” Dr. Sullivan said of the Democratic and Republican institutes. “But this is a newly freed state and a very brittle and emotional environment. It’s not the best environment for them to work. How would we react if a foreign country came here to teach us how to conduct elections?”

Many Egyptians appear to share the military-led government’s suspicions of American motives. “Eighty percent of the people think this is America’s work,” said Sherif Mohamed, 33, surveying metal fragments, garbage fires and dusty tear gas residue left on his block from five days of battles between protesters and security forces in Cairo.

“America does not like Islam,” he said, echoing a common sentiment here.

In recent days, several members of the newly elected Egyptian Parliament have said they look forward to the results of the investigation, asserting that it was wrong for the United States to violate Egyptian laws barring foreign financing of nonprofits.

LOS ANGELES -- About 7 in 10 Egyptians surveyed by Gallup in December 2011 oppose U.S. economic aid to Egypt, and a similar percentage opposes the U.S. sending direct aid to civil society groups. This rebuke of U.S. financial support may be a challenge for Egypt's newly elected parliament and its future president as the government attempts to bolster the nation's financial stability.
....

Egyptians are much more willing to receive aid from international institutions, with 50% favoring this type of help. Egypt's military and political leaders initally rejected an offer of support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) but later changed their minds. Last month, Masood Ahmed, Director for the Middle East and Central Asia Department for the IMF, was in Egypt to discuss a potential $3.2 billion IMF loan to Egypt. Egyptian leaders' ability to attract foreign aid and investment will be important to collecting the capital needed to move the nation's economy forward.
...

Egytians are nearly as likely to favor aid from Arab governments as they are to oppose help from the U.S. Almost 7 in 10 favor aid from Arab governments.This may in part reflect high-profile announcements by several of the country's Arab neighbors about their involvement in projects to help rebuild Egypt's economy.

...

However, some Egyptian politicians have begun to voice concerns about collecting on their neighbors' promises. Fayza Abouelnaga, Minister of Planning and International Cooperation in Egypt, recently noted that her country had received only $500 million of the $3.7 billion promised by Saudi Arabia and $500 million of the $1.5 billion pledged by Qatar. Further, she said the United Arab Emirates has paid none of its promised $3 billion. Abouelnaga estimated in December that Egypt's foreign debt reached $34.4 billion, representing 15% of its gross domestic product (GDP).

About 7 in 10 Egyptians surveyed by Gallup in December 2011 oppose U.S. economic aid to Egypt, and a similar percentage opposes the U.S. sending direct aid to civil society groups. This rebuke of U.S. financial support may be a challenge for Egypt's newly elected parliament and its future president as the government attempts to bolster the nation's financial stability.

I say we oblige Aboul Naga and wind down the aid program—including military assistance—as soon as practical. It’s hard to run against the “foreign hand” if there is no foreign hand. In addition to undermining Aboul Naga’s claims (and hopefully weakening her) bringing an end to the aid program and shutting down the USAID mission has multiple political benfits. First, Washington will no longer be in the unseemly position of providing taxpayer largesse—however small in the grand scheme of things—to a government that resents the United States and clearly does not share its values. Second, it will provide an opportunity for a much-needed change in military-to-military relations in which the United States merely pays for the services it needs like expedited transit through the Suez Canal. Third, it is consistent with this moment of empowerment and dignity for Egyptians many of whom do not want U.S. assistance either because they believe it actually stands in the way of a democratic transition or accept Aboul Naga’s argument along with those who couldn’t care less about U.S. assistance because it doesn’t touch their lives. Finally, it will free up funds for the United States to help others who actually might want Washington’s help, perhaps the Tunisians, Moroccans, or some sub-Saharan African countries would be grateful for development assistance.

I’ll wrap this post up by going back to where we started, namely, the Middle East after the “Arab awakening.” Even though GDP growth doesn’t contribute much to it, the model’s overall performance isn’t bad. After looking at those ROC curves, I wondered what the model would say about the prospects for the survival of new democracies in three Arab countries on the cusp of new tries at democracy: Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Of the three, only Tunisia would already qualify as democratic by my definition, but Egypt and Libya are both in the midst of transitions from authoritarian rule that could put them over the threshold soon. So I took the IMF’s latest projections of their growth rates and plugged them into the model, along with recent data on their levels of economic development and my best guess as to whether or not they would qualify as acutely polarized according to the data set I used for that indicator. Here’s what came back as estimates of the probability that each of those new democracies would make it to their sixth birthday, assuming that, of the three, only Tunisia would not qualify as acutely polarized:

Tunisia: 82%
Egypt: 48%

Private entrepreneurship is a vital antidote to this mix, but deep skepticism of markets persists in North Africa. A 2010 poll in Tunisia revealed that well over half the population preferred government jobs over any type of private-sector employment. And no wonder: In their experience, a market economy stands for crony capitalism that benefits only the well-connected. It's important to correct this perception.

“Ideas are cheap, but it is about whether you can find an entrepreneur who is passionate about the idea,” Mr. Ito said. “You need passion, some experience and good investors, but also you need the ability to have structure. Corporate structure is tricky and bankruptcy structure is tricky. Those tend to inhibit entrepreneurs that might otherwise be taking the risk.”

While the legal system differs from one Arab country to another, limits on foreign ownership and the need to have a local sponsor in the Gulf region in particular will limit the extent to which entrepreneurs can flourish. Bankruptcy laws also remain opaque and the interpretation of investor rights is often arbitrary. Censorship of Web sites and the banning in some countries of alternative phone providers like Skype also pose hurdles.

“Most of the companies I invested in, in Singapore, were transplanted with entrepreneurs coming from other places,” Mr. Ito said. “Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and other non-U.S. hubs have fairly easy corporate structures that started to mimic the U.S. Here, if you change the structure a little bit, you attract a lot of entrepreneurs, and then they would create jobs locally.”

Besides helping introduce investors abroad to opportunities in the region, Mr. Ito is eager to transport the M.I.T. Media Lab culture to the Middle East by hosting meetings in the region and encouraging Arab companies to join.

“Arab companies in the past wanted to do big things; they like big names and big projects,” Mr. Ito said. “I think the way the Media Lab innovates, which is undirected free thinking, is a little bit different than the culture here, which is to plan things and do five- to ten-year projects.”

Kidnapped US tourists released

By Heba Saleh in Cairo

Two American tourists were released hours after they and their Egyptian guide were kidnapped in the tourist hub of south Sinai, one of the few places still receiving visitors despite the political turmoil raging elsewhere in the country.

Bedouin sources quoted by Reuters news agency said the kidnappers agreed to free the tourists in exchange for four fellow tribesmen held by police.