March 30 2011 Assad Dissapoints and Libyan Chaos?

President Assad of Syria gave a long delayed speech today. Much to the surprise of the outside world, Assad did not make any concessions in the speech. Instead, blamed outside agitators for the demonstrations. It was widely believed that Assad would remove some the emergency ordinances that have been in effect for the last 40 years. After watching the speech, most Israeli observers believed that Assad is detached from reality, and that this is only the beginning of events in Syria.

An excellent place to get information on what is going on in Syria is the New Syrian Revolution web site:

The situation in Libya remains very fluid. It is very difficult to know where this is going. However, there are two groups I find difficult to stomach: some of the Republicans who claim the President exceeded his authority; and some others who claim we should use diplomacy to get rid of Qadaffi, and not force. A Libyan Professor in the US quoted two Arab sayings worth repeating: "When a Lion has his fangs out, do not believe he is smiling" and "A 'Pacifist' is someone who believes that a wolf is a vegetarian."

There were three interesting articles in the Wall Street Journal in the last two days. 1) Stephen Brett writes: Egypt, the Hangover

In the article Brett argues that either the Army or Islamic Brotherhood will be in control in Egypt.

2) Alan Dershowitz also wrote an article, on the rampart anti-semitism in Norway.

3) And Yossi Klein Halevi wrote today: Israel Is Resilient, but Watchful. In the article, Klein-Halevi claims that Israel and Israelis are strong, despite all the events. He did call on Netanyahu to take actions that will not lead directly to peace, but will show that Israel is willing to make concessions, the minute things stabalize and the Palestinians are able to actually reach a peace agreement. He calls on Netanyahu to change his coaltion and implement a unilateral building freeze in the West Bank.

The criticism of President Obama's policy in Libya seems almost laughable. We have the same people who were called for action, now saying the President has exceeded his authority. You can make an argument that President Obama waited too long, or that the mission is not clear enough (something very difficult with a coalition). I will go with what the Economist said in its editorial on the matter: While it would be nice to have a uniform approach based on moral criterio of when you intervene for humanitarian reasons, but in reality, you intervene when you can, and you cannot always do what you like. This time you can.