James Kirchik in the LA Times writes Don’t bow to the ‘Muslim Street’

America’s firebombing of Dresden during World War II surely “angered” many Germans, and our bombing of Belgrade during the Kosovo war perturbed Serbians. Did the fact that we (and our allies) antagonized people during these military actions make those interventions unjust? And while it’s true that the overthrow of the Baathist regime in Baghdad has angered Muslims around the world (many of whom, it ought to be noted, cheered Saddam Hussein and ignored his crimes against their fellow Muslims out of a cruelly misplaced sense of Arab nationalism), it has also delighted the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, Iraqi trade unionists and the many other victims of Hussein’s regime.There are lots of things that “anger” the “Muslim street:” Women not wearing burkas. Adults drinking alcohol. Homosexuals. But virtually no one seriously suggests that we make America less free in order to suit the tastes of the Muslim world. So why should we let something as nebulous and reactionary as “Muslim opinion” get in the way of preventing genocide in Sudan?

The context of Kirchik’s argument is the mass killing in Darfur. Should the ‘Muslim street’ dictate American actions in Darfur?

This question is especially pertinent considering that the United States is enormously popular in Africa. A Pew Global Attitudes poll released during the summer revealed that the majority of people in eight out of 10 African countries believe that the United States is their “most dependable ally.” More important, the poll found that most Africans fault the United States for not taking a more active role in Darfur. Continuing to avoid intervention there to please the “Muslim street,” therefore, will make us less popular with Africans. You cannot please everybody all the time, and in the case of Darfur, intervening will endear us to the people actually living in the region.

Barry Rubin applies the question more generally (and in slightly different terms).

Indeed, there are four main arches critical to the Middle East’s dominant ideology:* That its problems arise from Western and Israeli oppression.
* That the struggles and violence of radical Arab nationalists and Islamists are based on genuine grievances.
* That the West behaves wrongly because it is hostile or ignorant about Arabs and Muslims.
* And that Arab and Muslim society is vastly superior to the West which justifies their rejection of it and ultimately will pave the way for their victory over it.

The first three are too commonly accepted in the West; the last is largely ignored altogether. But the key to understanding the Middle East is not “Islamophobia” in the West but the region’s own “Westphobia,” “modernityphobia,” “secularphobia,” “democracyphobia,” “freedomphobia,” “femaleequalityphobia,” and “JudeoChristianphobia.”

The bottom line is that change is needed not in Western policies and perceptions but in the Middle East itself. After all, the West succeeded precisely-as Arab liberals well understand–because its societies pit a priority on internal change: education and honest inquiry; productive virtues; better social infrastructure; more human and civil rights; and a freer culture.

In other words, the West ought to ignore what’s widely called the “Muslim street” and appeal to Muslim moderates. (I assume that he’s not talking about the Muslim brotherhood that Jackson Diehl portrays as “moderates.”)

In this regard, a British student who lived in Syria has written a personal account entitled “Syrian Journal,” which reduces prevailing myths about the region to rubble. It brilliantly portrays a dictatorship using repression, demagoguery, and modern public relations’ techniques to stay in power.
…
Then compare this to a New York Times article on precisely the same topic, “Students of Arabic Learn at a Syrian Crossroads,” which falls for every regime trick and generally portrays Syria as a pretty good society.

All too often in the West those supposedly devoted to liberalism and enlightenment are those who seemingly respect the anti-Americanism (and generally the anti-liberalism) of the Muslim street. PostGlobal has a feature that I discovered yesterday, How the world sees America by Amar C. Bakshi. A quick look at the titles and you start to realize that series ought to have been titled “How negatively the world sees America.” The author isn’t looking for Africans or British students in Syria who appreciate America and the West, but rather for those who hold hatred of the West as one of their primary political beliefs.

Take for example How the world sees Jack Bauer.

Though he’s outrageous, Bauer is inevitably intertwined with America. He fights for it, after all, and embodies some of its stereotypes: multiple love affairs, an affinity for pyrotechnics, fierce patriotism, and most of all these days, a go-it-alone attitude. After the unilateral invasion of Iraq, America’s belief in the individual, once embodied by on-screen heroes like Rocky Balboa and The Terminator, increasingly reads as a political mantra.As Australian journalist Antony Loewenstein writes, Bauer’s use of “torture and the whatever it takes mentality is precisely why the U.S. is so despised right now.” From India, student Akshay Bawa writes: “Jack Bauer is James Bond on coke.” The cool, cosmopolitan imperialism of Britain’s 007 is replaced with the brutish patriotism of Bauer.

I will not pretend to be an expert on “24,” being a recent discoverer of the series. However as we’re approaching the end of the second season, barring any more unforeseen twists, the theme of the second season - clearly visible despite being obscured by all manners of violence - is “Why can’t we just get along?” It seems to be a plea of understanding to the Islamic world, not an indictment of that world.

If Bakshi - who seems to admit enjoying “24″ - finds critics of America who use “24″ as an excuse to hate America, it reflects on him too. Like those who give too much credence to the ‘Muslim street’ he sees a value in hating - or at least criticizing - America.

The United States ought to look to its interests first and not worry about how others react. In many cases the objection to America is not well thought out, but a posture that is celebrated as “sophisticated” by those who ought to know better.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

No, this is not a typo. If you need to check, look again here.

Federal agents, in a move that could have an impact on the presidential race, raided the Indiana office of the issuer of a private currency known as the Liberty Dollar — and seized tens of thousands of coins bearing the likeness of a presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul.

Overall, agents on Wednesday hauled away more than 2 tons of copper coins and 500 pounds of silver coins, as well as records and computers, the founder of the currency system, Bernard von NotHaus, told The New York Sun by phone from Miami.

You, the relentless seekers of a cheap laugh, may say it is fitting that Ron Paul’s face appears on a coin designed by a person named NotHous.

But the truth, as usual, goes much deeper than a gratuitous laugh.

This is an example of Bernanke trying to protect his own nest because he knows it’s got holes in it,” Mr. von NotHaus said, referring to Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. “He can’t have something like the Liberty Dollar running around competing with his currency. It points out the fallacy of the fiat monetary system. They had to do something. Their currency is losing and we’re going to the moon.

As you can see, it is far from being funny. Somebody is trying to undermine the Federal Reserve and, via it, one of our chief minions. Or chief tentacles, if you will.

Even when a person is named NotHous, is an admirer of Ron Paul and is referencing the moon, the Elders take heed. There will be no second warning…

Hat tip: Dick Stanley

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

Yesterday there was a conference, “Hijacking Human Rights: The Demonization of Israel by the United Nations,” in New York. The Jerusalem Post reported with a headline so obvious, it’s almost funny, US conference: UN biased against Israel.

The less obvious bit about this conference comes from Daniel Carmon.

Ironically, the one speaker to offer words of encouragement with regards to the UN was Deputy Permanent Representative of Israel Daniel Carmon. While acknowledging the atmosphere of “cynicism” that confronts the Israeli mission to the UN on a daily basis, Carmon said many have mistakenly approached the international body as “one black box.” “The automatic majority accompanies us with every step in the building, but this is not all that the UN represents,” said Carmon. “The UN is a more complicated, complex body.” Unlike other countries who participate in that “automatic majority,” which adopts processes and resolutions less for their content and more for who has signed on, Israel does not have a group with which to affiliate, nor will it in the near future, Carmon said.

However John Bolton had a much more negative view of things.

Earlier in the day, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton was more critical of the international body. “The UN was marginal during the Cold War and is well on its way to marginalizing itself when it comes to the world’s greatest threat, terrorism,” said Bolton. The UN, he said, has failed to come up with a definition of terrorism, and without a definition, little can be done to stop it. Regarding Israel, he noted that “there are permanent members of the Security Council and non-permanent members, but Israel is the only permanent non-member.”

Daled Amos was there and reports on the talk given by Nonie Darwish.

She told the story about her brother in Gaza who 10 years ago unexpected collapsed and the question was: which hospital should they take him too–the hospital in Gaza or Hadassah Hospital. The decision was, that if he was to live, they had to take him to the Jewish hospital.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

AOL, which, in 1998, bought the Israeli company, Mirabilis (ICQ), is buying Israeli again.

When US Internet giant America Online wants to go shopping for new Internet technologies, it heads to Israel. In less than a week, the Time Warner subsidiary has purchased two Israeli companies - Internet advertising technology company Quigo Technologies, for an estimated $350 million, and now search technology start-up Yedda, for an undisclosed sum.Yedda, a web 2.0 company, has developed a semantic search engine that differs from regular text-based search engines such as YahooAnswers or GoogleAnswers because it can automatically match questions to other related questions and topics, and select the best available users to answer the question. The patent-pending technology, which went live in August last year, intelligently routes questions to relevant communities of Internet users, sending out e-mails or instant messages to ‘experts’, and creating a large community of people who can discuss and learn from each other’s experiences. Content is rated for quality. This is the first Israeli Web 2.0 technology exit.
…

The acquisition follows last week’s buy-out of Quigo, which develops customized content-based advertising technology and products for websites. Like Yedda, AOL, which is now undergoing restructuring, plans to maintain the company’s R&D center in Israel.

And Intel is getting a lot of help with its new “green” chip, from its development center in Israel.

On Saturday global computer company Intel unveiled its latest addition to its processor family: a new chipset provisionally named ‘Penryn.’ The innovative hafnium-based “Hi-k” processor, which reduces electricity loss, or “capacitance,” through the use of third-generation silicon materials, also does away with the need to incorporate eco-unfriendly lead and halogen materials in the production process.”These are the biggest transistor advancements in 40 years,” Intel co-founder Gordon Moore said.

While the Penryn innovation was initially developed at Intel’s centers in California, the offices of Intel Israel, centered at their mammoth Research and Development Center in Haifa, played a crucial role in working out how the new chip micro-architecture could be manufactured on a commercial scale.

This is not the first time Intel has gotten a major innovation from Israel either.

Intel Israel scored its biggest coup to date in the 2003 development of the Centrino mobile chipset, which came, according to company spokesman Koby Bahar, as a “true breakthrough” in computing performance. The Centrino technology, initially designed for use in laptop computers, proved so fast and energy-effective that it rapidly began to appear in desktop PCs around the world as well.

I guess these are among the reasons that Israel’s stock market is doing so well.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Glenn Kessler reports that the current state of the Annapolis conference seems to be very up in the air.

“No one seems to know what is happening,” one senior Arab envoy said last week, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid appearing out of the loop. “I am completely lost.” The envoy recounted the calls he made in recent days to dig up information and said he had reserved rooms for his country’s foreign minister and other officials. He added with exasperation: “It is a very peculiar thing.” Even a senior administration official deeply involved in the preparations confided, before speaking off the record about his expectations: “I can’t connect the dots myself because it is still a work in progress.”

Maybe they hadn’t spoken to whomever Steven Erlanger spoke to.

The all-out push essentially speeds to the end of the now dormant 2003 “road map” for peace by insisting that the big issues once relegated to later discussion, like the status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees, be addressed immediately, even before the Palestinians begin to dismantle terrorist groups and networks. Simultaneously, the Americans will push both sides to carry out their obligations as laid out in the first stage of the road map, involving complex security and settlement issues, American and Israeli officials say. To press for action, which would involve painful decisions on both sides, the Americans will choose a senior official with a background in security to monitor progress. In the words of a senior American diplomat, “We’ll be assiduously fair, and very tough, and if necessary we will be public,” so that failure will have consequences.

We know how that will work. When the Palestinians fail to stop teaching hate, or reining in terrorists and the United States objects, the Arab world and its supporters will accuse the United States of not supporting Palestinian aspirations and the matter will be dropped. If Israel fails to adhere to every particular about “settlements” it will precipitate a “diplomatic crisis” and perhaps even lead to a condemnation in the UN. In the end only one side cares about American approval and other is seeking American pressure.

Roger Cohen, though, hopes that something, no matter how insignificant, might work.

Hope is a shrinking refuge. Annapolis looks like a looming photo-op. Even photo-up-plus would be something at this stage.

However it seems he doesn’t think anything inconvenient ought to be discussed.

What matters are the two peoples. But even basic principles are problematic. One core demand of Olmert and his foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, is for up-front Palestinian recognition of Israel “as a Jewish state.” But Saeb Erekat, a moderate Palestinian negotiator, has said that “Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity.”

Livni wants clarity on the Jewish character of Israel, which has a large Arab minority, as quid pro quo for recognition of Palestine and as insurance against mass Palestinian return. She’s right to want this; she’s wrong to push for the principle now. Why should Palestinians offer anything when the West Bank is a shameful place offering a primer on colonialism and Israeli settlements have grown almost unabated? Nascent Palestine is in pieces, invisible behind a reassuring fence-wall.

Well the reason that the Palestinians ought to offer recognition of a Jewish state is because it’s something that they supposedly committed to in order for the PLO to be certified as a reformed terror group. It’s something that should be the very basis of any other negotiations. If the Palestinians don’t accept that what more is there to discuss? Cohen asks:

Still, despair is a nonstarter, even if a minister in Olmert’s government is already voting for legislation to block any eventual division of Jerusalem. So what if Annapolis looks like Rice’s transparent, last-gasp bid for a “legacy achievement”?

Though Cohen’s question is rhetorical, In Diplomacy with the Devil, Danielle Pletka has an answer.

For example, in September Israeli jets destroyed what Israeli and American intelligence assessed to be a North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria. Officials who have seen the intelligence tell me the structure was the result of several years of transfers between North Korean nuclear suppliers and Syrian buyers. Ms. Rice’s most revealing comment? An explanation that “issues of proliferation do not affect the Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts we are making.”

This bizarre rationalization is oddly divorced from reality: how could Israel possibly be indifferent to its neighbors acquiring nuclear technology from America’s partner in the new agreed framework? The statement simply invites America’s adversaries to capitalize on the administration’s desperation. Why not engage in bad behavior if the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, will look the other way?

By kowtowing to the conventional wisdom of what a secretary of state should do, Condoleezza Rice is making her legacy dependent on the future behavior of a North Korean tyrant and Palestinian pretenders. Ultimately, that will serve neither selfish nor national interests.

With “legacy” rather than results being the goal, the whole conference is about creating a Palestinian state or at least setting events into motion to make that a possibility sooner rather than later. If so, all other considerations and concerns will be sacrificed to that single goal. It’s a making of a diplomatic disaster. For all the talk of the lack of preparation, Erlanger includes a revealing word in this paragraph.

The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, who was prime minister at the failed Camp David talks of 2000, said he once told Ms. Rice, who studied in Denver, that from a distance, the Rocky Mountains looked like a wave on the landscape. “But up close,” he said, “they are real mountains.”

Camp David “failed” not because of a lack of effort. But because Arafat didn’t want a solution. There is no reason to assume that his successor is any more committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel. And yet the Americans now, seduced by the siren’s song of “legacy” will attempt to achieve the unachievable.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.