Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Wikileaks is only starting

Only 1,060 of 251,287 documents - 0.42% - have been released so far, according to the Wikileaks Cablegate website (one mirrored here.)

Gaza, December 6, 2010.

From a photo essay in the Hamas-run Palestine Times.

At the Daphne Anson blog, a thorough survey of how Palestinian Arabs and Israel-haters are destroying history to demonize Israel around Christmas-time.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign offers a ten-card set depicting the madonna in Palestinian colours, holding her infant; I think she’s intended to convey the impression that she and her son – no introductions are required – were Palestinian rather than Jewish. The same PSC also offers a ten-card set depicting the Three Wise Men unable to get into Bethlehem owing to Israel’s “Wall”.

I cannot possibly do this piece justice by excerpting it. Read the whole thing.

Wikileaks: Saudis wanted Arab/NATO alliance to destroy Hezbollah

From The Guardian:

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan.
Here is what the cable said:
Opening a discussion with S/I Satterfield focused largely on Iraq, Saud first turned to Lebanon and stated that the effort by "Hizballah and Iran" to take over Beirut was the first step in a process that would lead to the overthrow of the Siniora government and an "Iranian takeover of all Lebanon." Such a victory, combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front, would be a disaster for the US and the entire region. Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was "entirely military" and that the solution must be military as well. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) were too fragile to bear more pressure; they needed urgent backing to secure Beirut from Hizballah's assault. What was needed was an "Arab force" drawn from Arab "periphery" states to deploy to Beirut under the "cover of the UN" and with a significant presence drawn from UNIFIL in south Lebanon "which is sitting doing nothing." The US and NATO would be asked to provide equipment for such a force as well as logistics, movement support, and "naval and air cover."

This happened during Hezbollah's siege of Beirut in 2008.

I guess, in the parlance of that part of the world, Saudi Arabia must be considered Zionist...

Hezbollah says it can destroy any ship en route to Israel

From Now Lebanon:

“Our missiles can track any ship heading toward Israel and destroy it,” an unnamed Hezbollah source said in an interview published on Wednesday.

“Any ship heading toward Israel can be destroyed by a rocket carrying 514 kilograms of highly explosive material,” the source told Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai.

The source added that Hezbollah “is not in need” of P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles “because it has enough cruise missiles for an upcoming war.”

And, of course, these cruise missiles are coming via Syria - and Russia is selling cruise missiles to Syria.

Israel needs to make clear, especially in wake of the Wikileak from Syria I mentioned yesterday, that any attack from Hezbollah will result in retaliation against Damascus. Syria still holds some influence over Hezbollah and that regime does not want to fight a direct war against Israel except through proxy.

Wikileaks: Concern about IHH in December 2009

In a recently released cable dated December 4th, 2009 it is mentioned that the Treasury Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes raised concerns about IHH, the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation. The same organization which purchased the Mavi Marmara and joined a flotilla of ships going to Gaza in May 2010.

The cable states that the IHH is "a large NGO providing material assistance to Hamas". [NAME REMOVED] surprisingly said to the Assistant Secretary that he was not familiar with the NGO but would look into the matter.

The same person whose name is removed from the cable states that Turkey and private Turks "sympathize with the needs of people in Gaza" and will send money directly to the people and work to "convince our Israeli friends to send help also".

Official Palestinian news agency republishes report denying Kotel (updated)

From JPost:

Only days after it was removed from the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information website, a “study” denying Jews’ rights to the Western Wall has resurfaced, this time on the official website of the PA’s news agency, Wafa.

By publishing the document on Wafa’s website, the official mouthpiece of the PLO and the PA, the authority has sent a message that its has officially endorsed its findings.

The article can be found here. I had talked about it here.

Nothing gets published in Wafa without the permission of the PA leadership, so this is indeed an end-run around their taking the bogus "study" down from the Ministry of Information website under pressure from the US. No doubt, if the US complains about this as it did the first time, the PA will claim that this is an independent news agency that they have no control over - and they will be lying.

(h/t Israel Matzav)

UPDATE: In a wonderful display of the standards of Palestinian Arab journalism, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate expressed solidarity with the author of the study filled with easily verifiable lies.

(h/t Serious Black)

Overnight open thread

Well, I finished my talk. About an hour forty, and i was rushing at the end. Some technical glitches - not all the videos played - but altogether it went well.

People seemed to like it, at least.

I didn't count how many people showed up but probably around 60-70.

One person said I had so much material I should turn it into an all day workshop!

Anyway, I'm zonked and probably won't be doing my usual early AM blogging, so here's an open thread until I get myself back together.

Last call: Come to tonight's Hasby Awards ceremony and Hasbara 2.0 talk!

Tonight is perhaps your only chance to see the Elder, live!

Yeshiva University - Rubin Hall

185th Street and Amsterdam Avenue

New York City

8 PM

I understand that this event has been heavily promoted all over YU.

The talk is divided into three sections.

First, the Hasby Awards. The People's Choice award winners are already known, but the top five Hasbies have been chosen by me, according to my criteria for good hasbara, namely: It must be effective at positively changing people's attitudes towards Israel, and it must have been noticed by a large audience.

There will be a brief discussion of why the winners were effective. I will discuss why this blog (in a vacuum) is not a good example of hasbara, and then we will go in-depth into the Eleven Rules for Hasbara with plenty of examples.

The final part will be about how, specifically, you can contribute to defending Israel, on both an individual and collective level. A large section is entitled "How to Be a Reporter" of things you can do to find and write up news, from your own desk, better than the mainstream media. Then we will go into how to publish, amplify and publicize the stories that need to be read by a large audience - not only how to make them go viral, but how to improve their reach and effectiveness.

There is a ton of information, and I can guarantee that you will learn something.

Afterwards, assuming that the digital voice recorder and lapel mike I just bought work well, I plan to create a full-length video of the talk. Unfortunately, it will not be free - I did spend a lot of time on this - but excerpts of the talk will be made available on the blog.

If you come tonight, of course, you don't have to pay. Plus you get free food - kosher Dunkin' Donuts, appropriate for Chanukah!

I look forward to meeting you!

Wikileaks: PalArab/Jordanian rioting cancels soccer game

From the latest batch of Wikileaks, an indication of how much Jordanians dislike their Palestinian Arab brethren:

Summary: Anti-Palestinian hooliganism and slogans denigrating the Palestinian origins of both the Queen and the Crown Prince led to the cancellation of a July 17 soccer game between the rival Faisali and Wahdat clubs, who traditionally represent the East Banker and Palestinian communities, respectively. Matches between the two teams have a long history of violence, but the specific digs at the royal family marked a new low. The clubs have been fined and their fans publicly chastised, yet official media reporting and commentary has been noticeably thin. The game exposed the growing rift between East Bankers and Palestinians in Jordan. The King’s silence on the event is noteworthy, as is a reluctance among our contacts to discuss the issue. End Summary.

Jordanian police intervened to stop fan violence and the chanting of anti-regime slogans during a July 17 [2009] match between Amman soccer clubs Faisali and Wahdat in the industrial town of Zarqa. The unrest began when Faisali fans started to chant slogans against Palestinian-origin Jordanians, including Queen Rania. Some Faisali fans threw bottles at Wahdat players and their fans. The coaches of both teams ordered their players off of the field in the middle of the game for their own safety, and the remainder of the match was canceled. (Note: It ended in a scoreless draw. End Note.)

---------

¶5. (S) Faisali-Wahdat games have a long history of hooliganism and politically motivated violence. Past matches have been shut down by the police following riots spurred by offensive slogans shouted by both sides. Those slogans have over time become a popular barometer of tensions between East Bankers and Palestinians. The slogans and cheers on the Faisali side during the July 17 match were particularly divisive and controversial, as they were directed at members of the royal family for the first time. Faisali supporters chanted about the Palestinian origins of Queen Rania with the cheer, “divorce her you father of Hussein, and we’ll marry you to two of ours.” The newly appointed Crown Prince did not escape comment either, as he is half Palestinian (and one quarter British) himself.

Official Fallout
----------------

¶6. (SBU) Official reaction to the match was surprisingly pro-forma. Prince Ali, half-brother to the King and chairman of the Jordanian Football Union (JFU), issued a statement calling the behavior of Faisali fans “unacceptable” and “a red line.” In addition to a relatively meager 5000 JD (USD 7000) fine on Faisali, the JFU indicated that larger security restrictions would be placed on future games. Members of parliament also sent a missive to the press denouncing the chants of Faisali supporters as “contrary to Jordanian values.” The statement was read by MP and Wahdat president Tareq Khoury on the floor of parliament. The Faisali club issued a press release of its own, promising to identify the “outcasts” among its fans and deal with them accordingly.

Media Silence, Internet Cacophony

¶7. (C) Despite all of the official condemnations of Faisali and its supporters, none of Jordan’s self-censoring media featured descriptive news stories about the game and why it was called off. Columnists and commentators, even those who are usually used to advance pro-government views, were noticeably silent. The heads of the Faisali and Wahdat fan clubs were allegedly invited to appear on Al-Jazeera, but refused in recognition of the sensitivities surrounding criticism of the royal family.

¶8. (SBU) Internet news sites, however, were full of commentary on the game and its implications. Many defended the Faisali supporters as “real” Jordanians fighting against undue Palestinian influence. Some commentators believe that Prince Ali failed to remain neutral in the conflict by only chastising Faisali supporters, and called for Wahdat to receive similar opprobrium.

Comment
-------

¶9. (S) There is broad recognition throughout Jordan that the Faisali-Wahdat incident exposed the uncomfortable gap between East Bankers and Palestinian-origin Jordanians -- one that most would rather keep well-hidden for the sake of political stability. The connection between this rift and the Hashemite monarchy, including the newly-appointed Crown Prince, makes the incident even more unsettling. Even our most forthcoming contacts are reluctant to talk with us about the issue, recognizing that it strikes at the core of Jordanian identity politics. One contact reluctantly admitted that the game brought out the “ugly side of Jordanian ultranationalism” and said that it would be difficult to contain now that it was publicly expressed. Another pointed to the “increasingly explicit and provocative” Faisali slogans as proof that status quo-oriented East Bankers are uncomfortable with the increasing pressures for reform that will inevitably lessen their near-monopoly on political and social power.

¶10. (S) The King’s silence on the game and its political implications is deafening. High level government contacts and members of the diplomatic community are puzzled by the King’s failure to respond to a verbal attack on his family that also dips in to Jordanian identity politics. While he is on “internal vacation” in the southern part of Jordan, the King’s public exposure has been limited to meetings with scattered foreign officials. While perhaps unintentional, the King’s silence has effectively empowered the pro-status quo establishment.

I knew there was friction in Jordan between the communities, but this is much bigger than I thought.

I need not mention that if any Israelis had shouted anti-Palestinian Arab slogans in a soccer game, it would be broadcast all over the world to prove Israeli racism. Jordanian bigotry against their own Arab brothers, on the other hand, is not going to get reported.

(After I found this, I saw that JPost had already covered it.)

Hamas clarifies its "moderate" stance

Late last week the Western media went through its periodic frenzy of believing that Hamas was moderating its position towards Israel. As reported by JTA:

Hamas will honor a peace treaty with Israel if the results of a Palestinian referendum approve the deal, said the group's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh.

Haniyeh said during a rare news conference Wednesday in the Gaza Strip that Hamas would "accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners and the resolution of the issue of refugees," Reuters reported.

The admission runs counter to the Hamas charter, which states that all of the land of Palestine, including what is now Israel, is a Muslim birthright and should not be ceded to Israel. The charter also calls for the destruction of Israel.

The new, improved "moderate Hamas" meme has been in the news before - a nearly identical story came out in 2008 and again in 2009. Both times Haniyeh spoke to Western reporters or diplomats and they ate it up.

Not as widely reported is that afterwards, in Arabic, he clarified his position to make sure that no Arab would think that he has done anything remotely peaceful. From Al Quds al Arabi:

Ismail Haniyeh, head of the deposed government run by Hamas, said his movement will not give up the rights of the Palestinian people, and said that talk of an 'interim order' does not mean compromising with 'Palestinian principles'.

Haniyeh said that Hamas's position is 'not to neglect any of the rights of the Palestinian people, concession and retreat from any fixed principles of the Palestinian [cause]'.

He added, 'when talking about any interim order it does not mean compromising Palestinian rights and constants'.

To emphasize the point, Hamas spokesman Hammad Riqib* said it more explicitly:

The spokesman of the Hamas in Khan Yunis Hammad Riqib stated that his movement is on its way to liberate the Al Aqsa Mosque and all of Palestine from the sea to the river.

Riqib said "Hamas was able for more than three decades to stick to our principles..."

He added "The Hamas movement does not rely on slogans and sayings, but the movement has translated into actions on the ground," stressing that Palestine is the homeland, Palestine is Islamic and not even one inch it may be waived or compromised.

He said: "Hamas has directed people towards a culture of resistance and preserving the principles, and provided for that constellation of martyrs, led by founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other leaders of the martyrs, and this is the best guide to everyone on the sincerity of Hamas and its adherence to the principles and not compromising the rights of the people."

As usual, we will not expect to see any major Western media outlet cover these clarifications of Hamas' "moderation."

* I am assuming that this is Riqib, the auto-translation gives his name as "cervical."

How did the Wikileaks get leaked?

A compelling article in Pajamas Media by Charlie Martin:

As someone who has been involved with intelligence for more than 30 years and with computer security for 25, the professionally interesting point is: “How did it happen?”

Let’s start by recalling some of the basics of the whole arcane mechanism of classification. The classification system in the U.S. grows out of two basic axioms: first, you work hardest to protect the material that can cause the most damage; and second, the one way to be certain someone can’t reveal a secret is to make sure they don’t know it.

...The whole system of classification depends on two things: making it hard to get sensitive information, and making sure as few people as possible do know a particular piece of classified information by using “need to know” rules and their formalization in compartments.

According to the press coverage, the only suspect is one Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning had been an intelligence analyst supporting the 10th Mountain Division. Manning bragged about having passed information to WikiLeaks to Adrian Lamo, previously famous for having cracking into the New York Times‘ internal systems. Lamo turned him in.

The story, as reported by the Guardian, is that Manning gathered the information on SIPRnet — a U.S. government sharing network for data at SECRET and below — then loaded it on writable CD-ROMs that he brought into his work area saying they contained Lady GaGa music.

The problem here: this explanation raises many more questions than it answers.

First is the “need to know” question. Manning had been a E-4 Specialist (same pay grade as a corporal) analyst — he was busted to PFC for unrelated reasons — and would have had access to intelligence in theatre. It seems inconceivable that he would have access to worldwide diplomatic cable traffic. The Guardian story’s answer is that these cables were being dumped into SIPRnet as part of a 9/11-inspired attempt to make information available, and thus avoid the problem of people not “connecting the dots.”

Perhaps. But the other side of that argument is what’s known as the “aggregation problem” in computer security: the more information you collect together, the more you can learn. As we’re seeing in these leaks, you can infer some very sensitive stuff from a lot of relatively low-level information. Are we really giving any random person with a SECRET clearance access to this much information, including video of Baghdad firefights and Special Forces operation reports?

Second, there’s the way Manning is said to have gotten the information out of his secure area. According to the Guardian, Manning brought in some rewritable CD-ROMs with music, erased the music, copied the data to the CD-ROMs, and walked back out with them.

If so, there is an ex-officer from his unit who is now counting socks in Thule, Greenland, or should be. Secure areas have a very straightforward rule on such things: media may come in, but it can’t go back out. (In fact, when I worked in a secured area, we even had to lock up our typewriter ribbons and platens.)

But this seems unlikely, because the DoD had forbidden people to even bring CDs and thumb drives in to secure areas in 2008.
...
This explanation isn’t completely implausible. Not completely. If it’s true, it appears that it means general breakdowns in the methods by which the U.S. has protected classified information since the First World War, as well as violating explicit policies and procedures.

Of course, there’s another explanation: someone at a higher level of trust than Pfc. Manning is the real source, and Manning is just a convenient fall guy.

Roger Cohen goes hick-huntin'

From Roger Cohen in the NYT:

I decided to check the pulse of a resurgent conservative America at the Kumback Café. The Kumback, established 1926, is a cozy, memorabilia-filled joint that sits opposite the courthouse in downtown Perry [Oklahoma], population 5,230.

Things work like this at the Kumback: The guys, average age about 80, arrive around 8 a.m. and get talking on “the whole gamut of life”; the girls, average age too indelicate to print, gather later at a horse-shoe shaped table toward the back. Ken Sherman, 86 and spry, explained: “We’ve got to come here every day to find out what’s going on. And by the time we leave we forget.”

I asked Paul Morrow, a whippersnapper at 71, how things were going. “There’s just too much Muslim influence, all this Shariah law,” he said. “We’re conservative here, old and cantankerous.”

You might not expect Shariah, a broad term encompassing Islamic religious precepts, to be a priority topic at the Kumback given that there’s not a Muslim in Perry and perhaps 30,000, or less than one percent of the population, in all Oklahoma. And you’d be wrong.

Jeffrey Goldberg summarizes it as "A very good Roger Cohen column on the irrational fear of Sharia, which the people who fear it most couldn't define if their lives depended on it."

While Cohen makes a reasonable point that the danger of Sharia law to Oklahoma is pretty much nil and that it is being used as a shorthand to exploit people's bigotry against Muslims, it is equally wrong to dismiss the issue of Sharia as flippantly - and as condescendingly - as Cohen does.

I don't think that Sharia needs to be outlawed in the West. It has a place, and that place is as a method of private arbitration between Muslim parties who agree to be bound by the decision of the religious judges - as long as that decision does not go against secular law. So, for example, if a shopkeeper has a dispute with his customer and both agree to go to Islamic arbitration that would use Sharia law in its decision, the American court can accept that decision as it would any other arbitration - as long as no one's hands are going to be chopped off. Agreed-upon third party arbitration, after all, is why it is legal for TV programs like " Judge Judy" to exist. Any decision needs to be reviewed and approved by a secular court, and there is great benefit in taking pressure off of the court system.

Safeguards have to be built in so that no party is coerced into accepting an Islamic decision process, such as a woman in a divorce case, but the possibility for abuse is not enough reason to throw out the system altogether.

Cohen's mistake, however, is in not considering how Sharia is not simply a personal legal code but it is intended as an all-encompassing system of universal laws in the international arena as well. Sharia as practiced in Iran or Saudi Arabia affects foreign policy, it affects how wars are fought, it affects whether Muslim nations accept international conventions - they still do not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights precisely because they perceive it as being in conflict with Sharia.

There are fatwas issued daily against Western nations and leaders. Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen have been under death threats that are based on Sharia. Is this not a concern to anyone who holds by liberal, western ideals?

In addition, Sharia is also used as a means to suppress freedom of expression, women's rights and an entire slew of other sacred liberal principles in a number of countries. It is entirely possible that Islamic law, as understood by hundreds of millions, mandates not only the destruction of Israel but also the conquest of Spain and other "Muslim" portions of Europe. It is very shortsighted to dismiss the desire of Islamic fundamentalists to expand Sharia law as greatly as possible worldwide.

Sharia does not distinguish between Islam as a personal religion and Islam as a geopolitical movement akin to communism or capitalism. This is not a danger to be dismissed so perfunctorily. Cohen, by deliberately looking for the most illiterate hicks he can find to show his moral superiority, is being disingenuous.

Bigotry against Muslims is wrong. But Cohen's unstated thesis is that if there are bigots who are against Sharia, then there must be nothing wrong with Sharia itself. This is a false and ultimately dangerous idea.

Another blow to Hamas/Fatah reconciliation

Hamas today sentenced three Fatah members to death for their role in killling a Hamas militant during the 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza.

As the pro-Fatah Palestine Press notes, Hamas had killed some 700 Fatah members during the battles and none of the Hamas killers have been tried. On the other hand, it is not like the PA could do it if they wanted to.

Syria's lies and what the West can learn from them

From the New York Times:

Just a week after President Bashar al-Assad of Syria assured a top State Department official that his government was not sending sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah, the Obama administration lodged a confidential protest accusing Syria of doing precisely what it had denied doing.

“In our meetings last week it was stated that Syria is not transferring any ‘new’ missiles to Lebanese Hizballah,” noted a cable sent by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in February, using an alternative spelling for the militant group. “We are aware, however, of current Syrian efforts to supply Hizballah with ballistic missiles. I must stress that this activity is of deep concern to my government, and we strongly caution you against such a serious escalation.”

A senior Syrian Foreign Ministry official, a cable from the American Embassy in Damascus reported, flatly denied the allegation. But nine months later, administration officials assert, the flow of arms had continued to Hezbollah. According to a Pentagon official, Hezbollah’s arsenal now includes up to 50,000 rockets and missiles, including some 40 to 50 Fateh-110 missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and most of Israel, and 10 Scud-D missiles. The newly fortified Hezbollah has raised fears that any future conflict with Israel could erupt into a full-scale regional war.

A major worry was that Syria or Iran had provided Hezbollah with Fateh-110 missiles, with the range to strike Tel Aviv. (A United States government official said last week that the 40 to 50 missiles were viewed as especially threatening because they are highly accurate.) Israeli officials told American officials in November 2009 that if war broke out, they assumed that Hezbollah would try to launch 400 to 600 rockets at day and sustain the attacks for at least two months, the cables note.

In February, the White House announced that a new American ambassador would be sent to Syria after a five-year hiatus. The next day, William J. Burns, a State Department under secretary, met with the Syrian leader.

During the session, Mr. Burns repeated American concerns about weapons smuggling to Hezbollah, one dispatch noted. Mr. Assad replied that while he could not be Israel’s policeman, no “new” weapons were being sent to Hezbollah.

Soon after the meeting, though, a cable noted that the Americans received intelligence reports that the Syrians were about to provide Hezbollah with Scud-D missiles, which are based on North Korean technology. (Some recent intelligence reports conclude that the group has about 10 such missiles stored in a Syrian warehouse that Hezbollah uses, according to American officials. The Defense Intelligence Agency believes that two have probably been moved to Lebanon, according to the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.) The United States officials also worried about Hezbollah’s vow to avenge the death of Imad Mughniyah, a senior fighter killed in a 2008 car bombing the militant group said was the work of the Israelis.

In a classified cable in February, Mrs. Clinton directed the embassy to deliver a warning to Faisal al-Miqdad, the deputy foreign minister. “I know you are a strategic thinker, which is why I want to underscore for you that, from our perspective, your operational support for Hizballah is a strategic miscalculation that is damaging your long-term national interests.”

The Syrian official’s response was dismissive, according to an American cable. He denied that any weapons had been sent, argued that Hezbollah would not take military action if not provoked and expressed surprise at the stern American protest. The complaint, he said, “shows the U.S. has not come to a mature position (that would enable it) to differentiate between its own interests and Israel’s.”

This episode points to what is good about the State Department - and what is bad about it.

It is nice to see that the State Department is not quite as clueless as its public statements and actions seem to indicate. They know when Arabs leaders are lying; they know that Israel is not the major obstacle to peace; they know that Iran strikes more fear into Arab leaders' hearts than anything that the Jewish state could possibly do.

What is unclear from the Wikileaks so far is how that recognition of how Arab leaders think translates into concrete action. The State Department does not seem to understand the honor/shame dynamic at play in Arab culture, and especially how that culture can work to the West's advantage.

In the honor/shame culture of the Arab world, when someone does something wrong it is not a source of shame until it becomes public. And that shame is to be avoided at all costs.

The world of diplomacy, on the other hand, is dedicated to keeping the unsavory facts out of public view, with the aim of eventually being able to convince the other party to cooperate due to mutual interests, or in some cases a sort of quid pro quo.

This secret diplomatic world of only privately expressing outrage plays into the Arab honor/shame dynamic perfectly. Arab leaders have no fear that their duplicity will be exposed by Western diplomats and they have no incentive to modify their actions. If it remains hidden from view, it is not a source of embarrassment. On the contrary, misleading the other party is a proud tradition - the Arab side speaks the language of the souk where both sides are expected to lie in order to strike a deal, and the honor goes to the one who most skillfully manipulates the other using a combination of lies and false compliments.

From that perspective, Arabs have a big diplomatic advantage.

The Western diplomatic fear that relations would be damaged by publicizing Arab misdeeds is overriding the huge potential benefits of threatening to expose those very misdeeds - to publicly shame the Arab leadership. In this way the Arabs can be forced to play the diplomatic game on a level playing field, not one where they can lie with impunity without any public consequence.

After all, even as this Syrian intrigue was happening, the US was preparing to return an ambassador to Syria - showing a public diplomacy completely at odds with what was really happening. Any way you slice it, this was a huge diplomatic victory for Syria and proof that its policy of lying to the US has no real consequences outside of hidden diplomatic outrage, which is meaningless to those within the shame culture.

Diplomats have a huge weapon in their hands - the truth - and they need to start using that weapon a lot more than they do today.