Israeli Double Standard Time

07/02/2009

Human Wrongs Watch

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Human Rights Watch — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Yesterday the New York Times reported on a recent Human Rights Watch report that claimed that during its campaign in Gaza Israel killed 29 civilians in six separate attacks.

Twenty-nine civilians, including eight children, were killed in what appeared to be six missile strikes by Israeli drones in Gaza in December and January, according to a report released Tuesday by Human Rights Watch. The group questioned whether Israeli forces had taken “all feasible precautions” to avoid civilian casualties.

Israel’s military has never acknowledged using the remotely piloted planes to fire missiles. In a statement released Tuesday, it said that it had used an assortment of weapons and technologies to minimize the risk to Palestinian civilians.

There are two obvious problems with this report. The first is that Marc Garlasco wrote the report for Human Rights Watch. Garlasco doesn’t have such a good record when reporting on Israel. Yet the New York Times fails to acknowledge his spotty record.. Also the Times cites PCHR uncritically. Anyone who has been reading Elder of Ziyon recently knows that PCHR is not reliable.

When Elder of Ziyon, looked at the report itself, he showed why skepticism towards Garlasco and he PCHR was warranted - HRW’s report was riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, including the identification of dead terrorists as civilians leading him to conclude.

However, HRW either ignored evidence that some of the “civilian” victims they are talking about were actually terrorists or it didn’t do any reasonable research (typing the names into Google should have been enough.) This is either sloppy work or it is purposeful deception on HRW’s part.

The NYT story on the HRW report concludes:

P. W. Singer, the author of a recent book on military robots called “Wired for War,” said Israel might also be finding that using the drones “certainly raises the bar of expectations.”

“Because you can target more precisely, people hold you to a higher standard,” he said.

This is perverse. Israel’s being singled out because of HRW’s animus towards Israel. Frankly a report on the thousands of Qassam fired into Israel wouldn’t have generated the same kind of buzz. This isn’t holding Israel to a higher standard; it’s holding Israel to a standard and holding Hamas to none.

Mere Rhetoric noted that HRW has a really poor record on Israel and, in fact, raised money for its activities in the human rights unfriendly regime of Saudi Arabia. NGO Monitor observed:

Similarly, Whitson told the Saudi leaders about HRW’s role in anti-Israel activities in the US Congress and the United Nations, boasting that this propaganda campaign was instrumental in the UN’s “fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza,” to be headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, who was also a member of HRW’s board at the time. (He resigned after the investigation began; as NGO Monitor noted, his membership on HRW’s board was a conflict of interest.)

So HRW used a “researcher” whose bias had already been established and itself, as an organization, had demonstrated its bias by using its anti-Israel bias as a selling point to collect funds one of Israel’s enemies. Yet the NYT, reported the story of HRW’s report without raising any questions as to the organization biases and record of anti-Israel advocacy. Human Rights Watch? How about Human Wrongs Watch instead?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

06/29/2009

It’s settled: No settlement freeze, please

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 6:16 pm

Now we definitely have to push hard for no settlement freeze.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh on Monday told the chairman of the Geneva Initiative, Yossi Beilin, that “a total freeze of settlements is a condition for the partial implementation of the Arab peace initiative”.

The initiative in question is the Saudi initiative, which wants Israel to withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines, give back half of Jerusalem, and allow millions of Palestinian “refugees” to live in Israel.

Meantime, the Palestinians have to do—nothing.

Non-starter. Stand your ground, Bibi.

Comments (0)

06/28/2009

About those “settlements”

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics — Tags: settlements — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

In an op-ed that is fully supportive of the administration, What a Freeze Can’t Do, David Ignatius lets a little inconvenient truth slip out.

That doesn’t mean any breakthroughs are imminent, however. The more the administration pressures Israel, the more concessions the Arabs seem to want.

Of course at the end of the article Ignatius writes something that requires a little expansion:

The settlements issue illustrates why the Arab-Israeli problem drives people crazy. Even if you achieve a breakthrough, there’s always another snag ahead. White House officials grumble about Israeli intransigence, but they’re also worried about “squishy” Arab promises and demands for preconditions. “Don’t keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002,” complains the senior White House official.

Let’s be clear about something: All the major concrete breakthroughs have come from Israel: recognizing the PLO, ceding control of seven cities to the Palestinians in 1995, completely withdrawing from southern Lebanon and Gaza. The responses have been the strengthening the likes of Al Aqsa Martryrs Brigades, Hamas and Hezbollah, not peace.

But of course the harping on “settlements” has given the Arab world an excuse for never moving beyond “squishy” words.

Jennifer Rubin adds:

You’ve got me. It is the triumph of ideology over reality. And it is evidence as to just how deceitful was Obama’s campaign rhetoric with regard to Israel and the Middle East. We know what he said then. It bears no resemblance to the current approach. Had he revealed his hand during the campaign certainly then-candidate Clinton, who professed to be a great friend of Israel, would have seized on the issue.

There’s more to that too. Those of us who questioned how someone with Barack Obama’s ideological background would be pro-Israel were regularly dismissed as misinformed, if not racist, cranks. Now President Obama’s hand has been revealed. Is anyone paying attention?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (2)

06/25/2009

Netanyahu’s “new” demand

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, palestinian politics — Tags: Article 20 — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Howard Schneider reports in the Washington Post on Netanyahu’s Peace Stipulation (h/t Backspin)

I suppose what’s disturbing about the article is its portrayal of Netanyahu’s demand as “new.”

The documents accepted by Israeli leaders during breakthrough peace talks with the Palestinians in Oslo in 1993 said nothing about their country’s status as a Jewish state or homeland — a concept absent as well from other accords negotiated by the two sides as recently as 2007.

“It has never been an Israeli demand,” said Ron Pundak, a member of Israel’s negotiating team in Norway and now director of the Peres Center for Peace in Tel Aviv. “When we negotiated Oslo, the issue of the characteristics of our state was never an issue. I think it is a mistake that we demand of others how we define ourselves.”

Well, no the nature of Israel was not explicitly part of the Oslo agreements. It was, however, implicitly there. One of the fundamental demands of the Palestinians was that they would change their Charter to eliminate all the clauses calling for the destruction of Israel.

That would have included article 20 of the Charter:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

(See here too.)

Quite clearly this denies that Jews have any right to a state and serves as a tenet of Palestinian nationalism and a justification for further terror. Though Arafat supposedly convened the Palesitnian legislature twice to remove those sections of the charter, the PA never replaced the charter and this language remains a core belief of the PA and its leaders. Pundak parrots the PA’s claim that the nature of Israel was never discussed. But that’s misleading, the failure of the Palestinian leadership to acknowledge the historical ties of Jews to Israel and consequently Israel’s legitimate claim to the land.

When PM Netanyahu asks that the Palestinians acknowledge that Israel is Jewish state he is asking them to acknowledge the historical Jewish ties and rights to the land. This is a lot to ask, because it goes against their fundamental beliefs. But it is not a new demand. The chutzpah isn’t that Netanyahu is making this demand, but that nearly 16 years after the peace process started that the Palestinians still have not accepted Israel’s right to exist.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

06/23/2009

Expansive settlements

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Jonathan Tobin — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

I remember at the end of a movie (was it the Pelican Brief?) , the hero talks about how he will never know if his car will explode when he turns the key to his ignition. The threat to him had been set back, but not totally defeated. I was reminded of that when I read Joshua Hammer’s account of the life of Jihad Jaara in Ireland.

Jonathan Tobin writes:

Without too much trouble, Hammer again tracked down Jaara in Ireland. What he found was a sad remnant of a man living in fear of retribution from Israel and perhaps the United States.

I don’t really have much to add to Tobin’s assessment of Hammer’s report. However when Jaara describes Avi Boaz, whom he kidnapped and killed (or helped kill), this is what Hammer writes:

Avi confessed that he had purchased lands from Palestinians, that he owned a house in Har Homa, that he’d invested in Har Homa.” Har Homa was a West Bank settlement then under construction. Jaara said he told Boaz that the settlement’s growth was “hurting” the Palestinian people.

Avi Boaz was killed because he was a “settler.” It really didn’t matter if he helped Palestinians (which he did.) Because he was a “settler” he was marked for death.

When diplomats, politicians, journalists and academics talk of how the “settlements” are an impediment to peace they are fueling this grievance and giving terrorists a pretext for their violence.

And with the Obama administration giving an expansive definition of “illegal settlements” to include even neighborhoods of Jerusalem, it isn’t going to bring peace any closer.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Comments (0)

06/19/2009

Gaza blockade runners now bringing cement

Filed under: Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

Suddenly, humanitarian supplies now include cement.

Activists campaigning for an end to Gaza’s blockade by Israel will sail to the enclave from Cyprus in defiance of the Israeli navy, they said Thursday.

Two boats, including one carrying cement and building supplies — materials not permitted by Israel — will sail from Cyprus on June 25, the multi-national Free Gaza Movement said.

“We are taking 15 tons of cement, which is just a token of how much the Palestinians need, because the Israelis won’t allow building supplies into Gaza,” said Greta Berlin, a representative of the group.

That’s funny. I thought humanitarian supplies were the biggest need. Medicines, food, clothing—all those things that the Gazans are supposedly not getting. Oh, wait—they are getting food. Even the Palestinian news agency acknowledges this.

Gaza – Ma’an – Israel will open three entry points into the Gaza Strip and allow 115 truckloads of aid and commercial goods into the Strip including limited amounts of cooking gas and industrial diesel on Thursday.

Crossings official Raed Fattouh said animal feed and wheat are expected to be transferred through the Karni Crossing, limited fuel through Nahal Oz and commercial and agricultural products through the Kerem Shalom crossing in the southern part of the Strip.

This marks the first time since Monday that three crossings will be open simultaneously, though the lowest number of trucks is set to deliver supplies to the Strip since last week.

Crossing activity for the week is as follows:

Saturday 13 - closed
Sunday 14 - closed
Monday 15 - three crossings open, 132 truckloads delivered
Tuesday 16 - two crossings open, 132 truckloads delivered
Wednesday 17 - two crossings open, 120 truckloads delivered

Looks like someone’s lying about the humanitarian “crisis” in Gaza. That’s because the “activists” aren’t actually there for peaceful purposes. They’re on the other side. If you doubt it, read their website:

In December 2008, Israel broke a ceasefire with Gaza and began a three week campaign of bombings, home invasions, and general destruction. During this massacre, homes, schools, mosques, and UN centers were all attacked by Israel. Thirteen Israelis, including 4 Israeli civilians, lost their lives, while over 1,300 Palestinian men, women, and children were slaughtered. Since the end of the massacre it has become harder than ever to bring in humanitarian relief, reconstruction aid, or developmental supplies.

My prediction: Their boat will not be allowed to offload that cement, if it makes it to Gaza at all.

Comments (1)

06/16/2009

The unnoticed intransigence, vs. the supposed intransigence

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 4:00 pm

If you read only the mainstream media reports on Israel, you come away thinking that it is the Israelis who are the obstacles to peace, and that it is the Palestinians who are the ones who are willing to make concessions to create a Palestinian state.

That is, until you actually read what the leaders of the two nations are actually saying. If you read only what the news media say they are saying, well, then you get something like this, which passes for analysis at the AP:

It’s also unclear if Netanyahu uttered the words “Palestinian state” because he really believes in one, or because he is trying to get out of a tight spot with President Barack Obama.

Understand the incredible hubris of that single sentence: Bibi Netanyahu used the words “Palestinian state” in his address on Sunday, just as the world was demanding he do. In fact, they came out like this:

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

[...] And here is the substance that I now state clearly: If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

The analysis discounted all of that (plus much more), and then trotted out Bill Clinton, whose administration actively worked against Netanyahu’s administration, for more “analysis”:

Former President Bill Clinton called the Israeli leader’s tough terms the opening moves in a “drama that will have a few more acts.”

“Based on my experience with Mr. Netanyahu, he did what he thought he had to do to keep the ball rolling and not completely alienate the United States initiative,” Clinton said.

“This is the opening play,” he added. “This is his response to the Obama administration’s first move.”

And then, buried way down in the article, the author suddenly remembers to point out that Netanyahu really isn’t asking for much more than has already been discussed by the Palestinians, Americans, Europeans, and Israelis in the past twenty years:

In truth, some of Netanyahu’s conditions were not surprising or new. Past peace talks did not envision a Palestinian state with offensive military capabilities. And a number of Palestinian leaders have privately acknowledged that millions of refugees and their descendants are unlikely to return to Israel in a final peace deal.

Really? So why so hot against Bibi’s saying what is already known, then? Why, the AP will tell you, by trotting out yet another critic, with the most spurious reason of all: Tone.

“The real difference lies in the tone - in the degrading and disrespectful nature of Netanyahu’s remarks,” wrote Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar in the Haaretz daily. “That’s not how one brings down a wall of enmity between two nations, that’s not how trust is built.”

What utter crap. What bullshit. Tone? Disrespect? You mean like this?

“Netanyahu’s speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,” he said. “We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it.”

Or maybe this?

Former President Jimmy Carter, on a visit to Israel, said Monday the speech “raised many new obstacles to peace that had not existed with previous prime ministers.”

Specifically, what did Netanyahu raise that has not been raised before? Nothing. Carter, as always, is lying. And the AP, as always, is blaming Israel when it should be blaming the Palestinians. It wasn’t Israel that launched 7,000 missiles at Palestinian civilian areas.

Comments (2)

06/10/2009

Israel helping Gazans, world doesn’t notice

Filed under: Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

This isn’t getting any play at all in the anti-Israel media.

Israel began construction of an underground pipeline on Tuesday that will deliver diesel fuel and cooking oil to the southern Gaza Strip.

The decision to build the pipeline followed the suggestion of the political echelon, the IDF said.

Israeli and Palestinian construction crews will both work on the project, the army added.

“The IDF will continue to work to improve the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” a statement released on Tuesday said.

Meanwhile on Monday, Kaddum, a Palestinian village adjacent to Kalkilya, was connected to the Israeli national power grid.

But—but—just last week, President Obama said that the situation in Gaza was in crisis!

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Crisis, I tell you! Crisis!

The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, which oversaw the work, said the new arrangement would lead to “significant change in the lives of 4,000 villagers, who can now frequently use electricity, and who had suffered from cuts due to a past reliance on generators.”

The civil administration worked with local Palestinian authorities to construct the link to the power grid, the statement said.

“This step joins a series of steps taken recently… that can significantly increase the quality of life for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria,” the civil administration said.

Funny how the Obama administration didn’t notice that Israel is already working to enable the progress of Palestinians in Gaza. It’s almost like nobody pays attention to anything but the Hamas side of things. It’s like Hamas is faking the crisis, or stealing aid and goods from workers to distribute to their own people or something. Or stealing ambulances to convert them to military vehicles.

But hey, there’s a humanitarian crisis going on. Didn’t you hear the president?

Comments (0)

06/06/2009

Obama’s Cairo speech gets quick results

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Saudi Arabia, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 11:06 am

Obama’s public weakening of support for Israel is getting the results you would expect:

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said the US should use aid it gives Israel as leverage in order to pressure the state into accepting the US-backed two-state solution.

[...] When asked whether the US should withhold funds until Israel agreed to a peace plan calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state Faisal said, “Why not? If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people’s lands, you bear some responsibility.”

Why not, indeed. And al-Faisal speaks for the rest of the Saudis. Of course, there are no reciprocal demands on Arab nations:

What are Arabs prepared to do now that Obama has come out so firmly against Israeli settlements?
The speech is one stage, but it has yet to be translated into actions. Arab countries have learned through 60 years of experience with Israel that it’s not the agreement you reach with them; it’s the implementation.

No, really. No obligations whatsoever.

I would be very frustrated if I were Obama having this conversation with you. You’ve got Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu saying he won’t budge, and you saying “we made our offer. Take it or leave it.”
What can we do more than that? The land that is occupied is in the hands of Israel. We don’t have anything to offer Israel except normalization, and if we put that before the return of Arab land we are giving away the only chip in the hands of Arab countries.

And about that bow?

Yes, he bowed. But remember, he is also of a culture that respects age. It was not demeaning or servile bowing to somebody. When you see an older person, you respect him. I think those who made a fuss about it would do well to take such good manners to heart.

Really, I didn’t think we could have an administration that was further in bed with the Saudis than the Bushes.

I was wrong.

What remains to be seen now is how Israel’s friends in Congress deal with this new direction. Because the Obama administration is making it clear that they’re not going to honor the Bush Administration’s promises to Ariel Sharon:

“We have the negotiating record, that is the official record that was turned over to the Obama administration by the outgoing Bush administration,” Clinton said Friday at a joint press conference with her Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu.

“There is no memorialization of any informal or oral agreement” concerning the settlements, she said.

That’s a legal distinction. But this is not a court of law. This is the Obama administration choosing to ignore a deal that its predecessor made with another nation, thus diminishing the word of America in international relations.

And by the way, to those of you who voted for Obama insisting he was an Israel supporter: Still think he wasn’t lying?

Comments (3)

06/05/2009

The Cairo context

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: President Obama — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

To some degree, I understand the argument that President Obama’s speech in Cairo yesterday wasn’t much different from a speech that President Bush would have given.

And if you read some of the more detailed analyses of the speech (like Bookworm’s or the Provocateur’s) you can clearly see the good points and the bad points. And yet when I wrote my first post on the speech it was negative.

Content, though, is one thing. Context is another matter entirely.

Consider my initial post on the speech. I’ll admit, I hadn’t read the whole speech at that point. I was relying on a Washington Post report. What was the emphasis of the Post’s report?

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

The media acts as a filter and a magnifier. Sure later on, President Obama talked about how the Arab states ought not to let the Palestinian issue stop them from political reform, but this was early in the speech. President Obama had to know two things. One is that his audience would love his evocation of the Israeli occupation and the other is that most major news organizations. well aware of the diplomatic maneuvering with Prime Minister Netanyahu would emphasize the rebuke he was directing towards Israel.

Another thing the President could count on, is that the major media reporting would gloss over the fact that his demands on Israel represented a sharp break from previous administrations. Even the administration of Bill Clinton.

Still one could argue that the President first rebuked the Arab world for its Holocaust denial, so the rebuke of Israel was part of a balancing act. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t buy the balancing act but still its editors wrote:

The President even went one better than his predecessor, with a series of implicit rebukes to much of the Muslim world. There would have been no need for him to specify that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis if Holocaust denial weren’t rampant in the Middle East, including Egypt, …

But think about that for a moment. Egypt, which made peace with Israel over 30 years ago, still propagates some of the most vile antisemitism in the region. And go back to the Washington Post report. The President’s comments on the Holocaust elicited no response from the audience. And this is in a country that’s been paid $2 billion a year for its ostensible peace with Israel!

The President’s remarks about Holocaust denial weren’t part of any larger campaign. They were uttered in a vacuum. Has the President pursued this issue as actively and publicly as he’s pursued the “settlement” issue?

A similar analysis applies to the President’s exhortation to the Arab world not to use the Palestinian issue as an excuse for blocking political reform. This isn’t an issue he’s promoted elsewhere. So in effect the good statements the President made, appear to be lip service to moderation, while he pursues a path of trying to pressure the one target he believes is susceptible to pressure. He does not care if his exhortations to the Arab world are heeded. He can say the America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable” but if his actions demonstrate that he’s only interested in getting to a Palestinian “yes” regardless of the cost to Israel, then his assurance is meaningless.

The editors of the Washington Post fear that there’s only one message that the Arab world will hear from the speech. They recommend that the President continue to push these issues. An AP writer took the same message from the speech and wrote a news “analysis” that puts the onus of peacemaking on Israel.

There are other contexts that were missing from his speech. JoshuaPundit criticizes the President for failing to recognize how mainstream extremism is in Islam. Wolf Howling shows that the President rewrote history.

Rather it appears that what’s driving the President is to make new friends even if they’re enemies, at the expense of an old friend. And I don’t think h’es stupid or naive. I think he is very smart and very driven ideologically. More and more Ali Abunimah looks vindicated.

UPDATE: One other point that has to be made is that President Obama sought a “peace gesture” from the Arab world and was rebuffed.

But when he meets in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with King Abdullah, he should be prepared for a polite but firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts say. The Arab countries, they say, believe they have already made their best offer and that it is now up to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling settlements in the West Bank or committing to a two-state solution.

“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council, which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.

Unlike in the case of settlements where President Obama issued an unqualified disagreement with Israel, the President stepped very gingerly around this rebuff.

The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.
…
We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.

If he were being balanced, he would have specifically mentioned that Arab states ought to treat Israel as a legitimate state. He didn’t even ask them to do that publicly.

Instead the President took a diplomatic dispute with Israel and amplified it. And he failed to address the Saudi refusal to offer even a symbolic gesture to Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

Analysis: mainstreaming Jewish conspiracy theories

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israeli Double Standard Time, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

If you were to read this without knowing the source, where would you suspect it originated? The Arab News? Al-Ahram? Palestinian propaganda rags?

Among the long list of problems that cloud American relations with the Islamic world, none is more troubling in the Muslim streets and halls of power than U.S. ties to Israel and massive support for the Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

On that, Obama gave no ground, declaring U.S. bonds with Israel “unbreakable.”

But as he presses Netanyahu for concessions, Obama has to be looking over his shoulder toward the powerful Israeli lobby in the United States and the many deeply conservative Christian organizations that back Israeli policy without question. Both can make big political trouble for an American president who tips too far from Israel.

Obama appears willing to gamble that pressure on Netanyahu will not produce damaging blowback, especially with more than three years left before the next U.S. presidential election.

Try again. It’s the AP anaylsis by Steven Hurst. And it’s become increasingly mainstream to blame The Israel Lobby for the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, and their team of anti-Israel crybabies have done their job, and done it well. They constantly hammered on the theme that they’re the ones being victimized by The Israel Lobby™, all the while getting their views in op-eds in all of the major news media, and their anti-Israel treatises published and widely distributed. They’ve shifted the blame from Muslim rejectionism to—Israeli settlements.

It’s not the terrorism that prevents peace. It’s not the incitement that goes on daily. It’s not the refusal of the Palestinians, or indeed, any of the Middle East Muslims, to negotiate rather than to make demands (cf: Saudi peace plan, Abbas’ refusal to talk to Netanyahu, Amr Moussa, etc., etc, etc.). It’s not the Palestinian refusal to acknowledge the Jewish origins of Israel (and particularly Jerusalem and the Temple Mount). It’s not the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state as a Jewish state.

No, it’s the settlements. And the Israel Lobby. And the Obama team has apparently completely bought into the settlements argument.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

So what’s Hurst’s analysis on this point?

An Israeli government statement issued after Obama spoke ignored his calls for a settlement freeze and the creation of an independent Palestinian state - demands that the hawkish Netanyahu continues to reject.

“We share President Obama’s hope that the American effort heralds the beginning of a new era that will bring about an end to the conflict,” the statement said, noting that Israel’s security must be guaranteed.

Do you see the narrative here? Bibi put out a positive statement about an end to the Palestinian conflict, and the AP slams Israel for wanting security guarantees—as if Israel didn’t have a constant threat of terrorism and attacks hanging over her head on a daily basis. But since he didn’t immediately line up behind Obama to agree that Jerusalem should be an international city (read between the lines), that “hawkish” Netanyahu “ignored” Obama and “rejects” the creation of a Palestinian state.

But Obama dwelled most heavily on an Arab-Israeli peace. He spoke 6,000 words in Thursday’s speech, 1,000 about the Mideast conflict.

Yeah, funny how that happens to the best of us. It’s almost like the AP article concentrated entirely on the Israeli side of the problem, and not at all on the Palestinian side.

And the last word? Well. It’s that scary Israel Lobby meme:

“It is easy to point fingers,” the president said. “But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

Easy to say. Harder is overcoming six decades of hatred and bloodshed, and the entrenched interests that eventually will face Obama at home.

The hatred and bloodshed is coming from mostly one side. Granted, Israel is not a nation of saints. But the Muslim nations surrounding Israel went to war five times since 1948 to try to destroy her.

Yes, it’s very easy to point fingers. That’s exactly what the anti-Israel media is doing.

Comments (0)

06/04/2009

Strong bond? More like bound and gagged

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics — Tags: President Obama — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

From the Washington Post:

Obama used far stronger and more specific language than his previous remarks on some of the most contested issues in the Muslim world, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although he urged Arab nations to do more to achieve peace with Israel, Obama also spoke passionately about what he called the Palestinian right to a state.

“America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable,” Obama said. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

Citing the destruction of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, Obama said that “threatening Israeli with destruction, or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews, is deeply wrong.”

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Note where the applause was. Not after mentioning the bond with Israel. Not after castigating the Arab world for Holocaust denial. But after he demanded that the Palestinians have more freedom than the Egyptians gathered before him. It will be tough to do if the Palestinians are more interested in prolonging their statelessness and keeping their grievance alive.

In a transcript of the speech, the President doesn’t mention the word “terrorism” at all. Israelly Cool observes that when it comes to the Palestinians he eschews “terrorism” for “resistance through killing.” Apparently he believes that there’s something unique about “occupation” that it deserves a special denunciation.

So it appears that the bond President Obama refers to is his effort to constrain Israel’s actions regarding its own citizens.

The New York Times reports:

But he sought to explain that he represented the new face of American leadership. He did not mention the name of George W. Bush, who preceded him in office, and whose policies contributed to the mistrust.

Funny, millions of Iraqis get to vote for their own government. And that’s a reason for mistrust. Of course it is, if you’re an autocrat and wish to preserve your own power and position.

Also please see Israel Matzav, Gateway Pundit and especially Elder of Ziyon. Who’s next?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

06/03/2009

Honesty is the best policy, Israeli Exception Clause version

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, Juvenile Scorn, Religion, Saudi Arabia — Tags: Israel, Muslims, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 10:00 am

“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.

So let’s hear Obama get honest with the Saudis, with the Egyptians, with the Palestinians, with the rest of the Arab Muslims. Then let’s hear him get honest with the Pakistani Muslims, with the Muslims in the Phillipines, with the Muslims in China, Russia, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Let’s hear him honestly tell Muslims that:

Non-Muslims get to worship whom and what they please. Suck it up.
You do not get to dictate to non-Muslims that you will kill them if they “offend” your infantile sensibilities about your religion
In that spirit, rational people do not riot over perceived slights to their holy books and figures
Non-Muslims are not lesser beings who deserve fewer rights than Muslims
Non-Muslims have the right to worship in peace in Muslim nations, (and in non-Muslim nations where there are significant Muslim populations)
Jews lived in Israel thousands of years before Mohammed showed his face in the Saudi desert, and Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews.
Likewise, Jerusalem is the ancient heart of Judaism. Suck it up.
Israel is a Jewish state. Suck that up, too.
Women are, and should be treated as, the equal of men. Welcome to the 21st century.
Binding United Nations resolutions are binding on all nations, not just on Israel and the West.
Really, those of us who are non-Muslim are not the least bit interested in your fictional Caliphate. Plans for world domination are so 20th century. Lose the yearning for the good old days; they’re gone forever. Learn a skill. You’ll achieve more.
To the OIC on the UN Human Rights Council: Try looking at your own backyards first before constantly slamming Israel. I sincerely doubt your nations would pass muster even on animal cruelty issues, let alone human rights.
To the Arab and Muslim dictators, kings, princes, emirs, autocrats, and kleptocrats: Goose. Gander. If Palestinians should have self-rule, and free elections, so should Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians (without the interference of the Mad Mullahs in choosing whom is allowed to run, there is no free election), etc., etc., etc. Otherwise, feel free to STFU about the centrality of the Palestinians and Israel.
Last, but not least: Colonialism has been over for many, many years, and yet, you’re still blaming it for your societal ills. Get over it, and learn how to put your oil money to good use instead of paying for palaces, planes, and parties. Get a real, job, you lazy bastards.

That’s all for now. But I doubt you’ll find much of what I wrote up there in Obama’s speech tomorrow. Count the Israel references, though. There should be a ton of them. Because when it comes to being “honest” with friends, apparently, the honesty only counts when it’s directed towards Israel. Once again, the Exception Clause is in play. That’s where you add “Except for Israel” (or “Jews”) to the end of whatever is being said, or when what is being said applies solely to Israel (or Jews), and to no one else.

Comments (0)

06/02/2009

You might just as well be blind

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Helene Cooper — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Helene Cooper whose Rolodex seems filled with only anti-Israel experts now writes that President Obama will be “honest” with Israel.

“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.

“We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace,” he added. “I’ve said that a freeze on settlements is part of that.”

It’s nice to have a constant belief, but when they haven’t led to peace until now, you better have a reason for believing that they would start now. And when the other party has decided to be passive aggressive, well “settlements” aren’t the main issue and ought not to be.

When questioned why he’ll be appearing in Egypt this week, President Obama answered:

Mr. Obama also dismissed criticism that he should not deliver his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo because of Egypt’s poor record in upholding human rights. “It’s a mistake to suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of them meeting all our demands,” he said.

So he needs to be “honest” with Israel, but he can let the Egyptians slide. Well guess what, the Egyptians (and the whole Arab world) could use a little honesty.

One remarkable thing he can do for Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world is to offer American help in making governance more sound. He should promote the rule of law by promoting democratic elections and term limits for democratically elected presidents.

This may appear to be long shot. Mr. Obama’s advisers will likely argue against it to avoid offending his host. But such a bold move would win him the hearts and minds of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims forever.

My guess is that President Obama’s yearning for honesty won’t extend that far. He’ll be seeking approval not advocating change. (And honesty apparently won’t extend to honoring previous commitments.) Maybe he’ll pay some lip service to some symbolic but insubstantial form of recognition of Israel. But I’d guess that honesty In the Middle East will hardly ever be heard except regarding Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

05/30/2009

A partiality test

Filed under: Hamas, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Hamas, Media Bias, Road Map — Meryl Yourish @ 9:38 am

See if you can figure out where, and whom, these quotes come from:

Palestinians watched with hope this week as President Barack Obama called for an Israeli settlement freeze and spoke about the need to move quickly toward statehood alongside President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House.

But despite the clear signal of a shift, there is caution in the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinians judge whether the administration has the mettle to make good on promises which have become all too familiar.

“Obama has new speech, but not yet a strategy,” says Mohammed Khirresh, a Palestinian economist and political analyst, speaking on the sidelines of a Ramallah policy conference sponsored by the Palestinian Center for Media and Research. “The criterion for Obama’s new strategy is whether I can see it on the ground and touch it. Otherwise, it’s empty words.”

Despite his charm and message of change, Obama must still overcome a deficit from decades of failed US policy on mediating an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Palestinians are weary of a peace process that has been long on talk and short on dividends, and that has eroded the credibility of the president’s diplomatic pulpit. There are also questions whether one president has the political ability to buck decades of US partiality toward Israel.

What do you think? Al Jazeera? The Arab News? Al-Ahram? Reuters?

Nope. The Christian Science Monitor. And the author: Joshua Mitnick. And there’s even more Palestinian propaganda to come:

Still, conditions are less than ideal, because Israel’s right-wing government won’t endorse a two-state solution and because of the ongoing rift with Hamas, a long-time critic of negotiations with Israel.

Because Mr. Abbas is a proponent of diplomacy instead of violence, his political fortune is in large degree tied to Obama’s ability to push Israel to ease restrictions on movement in the West Bank, allow goods into the Gaza Strip, and restart a credible negotiations process.

But wait. There’s even more propaganda: The taming of Hamas.

Even Hamas is sounding politely upbeat. An aide to Hamas’s Gaza leader, Ismail Haniyeh, said that the Islamic militants seek to foster good relations with the West, including the US, which lists the group as a terrorist organization.

“We have no other choice,” said the aide, Ahmed Yousef, addressing the Ramallah gathering by video link. “We hope that the new administration will take a more balanced approach in solving the conflict.”

Funny, that’s not what Hamas’ spokesman is telling the rest of the media:

Meanwhile, Islamic Hamas movement, bitter rival of Abbas, said the meeting between Abbas and Obama was disappointing and did not bring any new thing.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said his movement saw Abbas’s commitment to the Road Map as “an uprooting of the resistance and a liquidation of Hamas” as the plan calls on the PNA to dismantle the armed Palestinian groups.

“All the Palestinian factions rejected the Road Map except Abbas,” Barhoum said, adding that Obama’s statements were “insufficient wishes that are no longer useful under the Zionist increasing military escalation.”

Hamas wants Abbas to halt peace negotiations with Israel, and to adopt armed resistance against Israel to pressurize the Jewish state into giving the Palestinians their legitimate rights back.

It makes you wonder how blind these so-called Mideast experts truly are, that they can’t even keep up with other news organizations’ reporting of the same topic. But of course, it isn’t blindness. It’s deliberate obfuscation because the above quote doesn’t fit Mitnick’s—and the Christian Science Monitor’s—narrative. That narrative, of course, is that it’s not Palestinian terrorism, anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) incitement, and the refusal to compromise that is responsible for the lack of peace. No. It’s Israel in general, and settlements in particular.

You really have to wonder what the CSM’s problem is. As for Josh Mitnick, well—I’m guessing he’s one of Snoopy’s AssaJews.

Comments (0)

05/28/2009

Unsettling

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Binyamin Netanyahu — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

The Washington Post reported the other day that the United States is pushing Israel to stop all “settlement” activity. And that PM Netanyahu caught flack on the topic from an unexpected source: formerly pro-Israel Congressmen:

During meetings with congressional leaders this week, Netanyahu was stunned by the “harsh and unequivocal statements” with which lawmakers complained about the settlements, according to an account in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. The newspaper said that although the prime minister tried to highlight the threat of Iran in his talks, lawmakers instead returned repeatedly to the issue of settlements, leading his entourage to conclude that the message had been coordinated with the Obama administration.

That’s a reasonable conclusion, though I’m surprised it wasn’t reported last week. Regardless, Israel was relying on assurances from the now no-longer-in-power Bush administration:

Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev said there are no plans for a full settlement freeze. “The issue of settlements is a final status issue, and until there are final status arrangements, it would not be fair to kill normal life inside existing communities,” he said.

Regev said the Israeli government is relying on “understandings” between former president George W. Bush and former prime minister Ariel Sharon that some of the larger settlements in the occupied West Bank would ultimately become part of Israel, codified in a letter that Bush gave to Sharon in 2004. In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Sharon aide Dov Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration arrived at a secret agreement — not disclosed to the Palestinians — that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies.

Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser who negotiated the arrangement with Weissglas, confirmed the deal in an interview last week. “At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be constrained, and in fact it was constrained in the later part of the Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that were discussed,” he said. “There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement.”

But according to the New York Times it would appear that the Obama administration has no interest in continuing an understanding - albeit and unwritten one - that was extended by the previous administration:

Speaking of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Talking to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said: “That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.”

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks, the administration’s strongest to date on the matter, came as an Israeli official said Wednesday that the Israeli government wanted to reach an understanding with the Obama administration that would allow some new construction in West Bank settlements.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is expected to focus on the issue of settlement expansion when he meets with Mr. Obama on Thursday in Washington. Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have said repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.

Jonathan Tobin asks:

Does this leak of a plea by the Netanyahu government show that Jerusalem believes the Obama administration will actually unveil a new peace plan that will explicitly prohibit the construction of a house or add-on anywhere over the green line?

The question of settlement growth has been something of a red herring for years. Israel isn’t building new settlements and hasn’t since the 1990s. But unless the United States is going to adopt a position that every single one of these Jewish communities must be held in a choke hold — the better to ease them out of existence — natural growth must be allowed.

But here’s the rub:

George W. Bush’s June 2004 statement in which he explicitly supported the creation of an independent Palestinian state (albeit one that would not be ruled by supporters of terror and corrupt actors, something that pretty much renders such a state impossible under the existing circumstances) also said that any peace agreement must take into account the changes that have occurred on the ground since 1967. In other words, the large Jewish suburbs on the outskirts of Jerusalem and elsewhere close to the old border were not going to be handed over to the Palestinians under any circumstances. Then, as now, most Israelis would be willing to give up outlying settlements but now the clusters close to the old green line are where most of the “settlers” live. Ariel Sharon paid in hard diplomatic currency for this American statement but his successors soon discovered that the purchase was worthless.

Palestinian officials may claim that they won’t engage in peace talks without a complete “settlement” freeze, but that’s hardly the main obstacle to peace.

The Palestinian factions can’t even put on a unified front - and even if they can, there’s no guarantee that they’ll adopt a “moderate” position - and their moderate leader refuses to endorse a Jewish state (which would be a prerequisite for accepting a “two state solution.”)

And is the United States going to ignore the very real incitement that still comes from the Palestinians on a regular basis?

To see the perfect symbol of the problem with U.S. Middle East policy you need look no further. No one in the region takes America too seriously because it does not follow up and enforce its positions. The PA knows that it can do what it wants and pay no price. There is no–repeat no–real pressure on it to stop incitement, educate its people for peace, make any real compromise or concession. Instead, this “moderate” institution is continuing to teach its children that being a terrorist is the highest calling and due the greatest honor.

Just like Hamas does.

The Western media also has no interest in this issue either despite energetically seeking out any issue on which Israel can be criticized, even often when such things are made up and prove to have no basis in reality.

We have seen, and will see, the administration devote huge efforts to stopping settlers from adding a room onto an existing apartment. Will it devote any effort at all to turning the PA in the direction of peace or even enforcing U.S. law?

So with Iran about to develop nuclear weapons, Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah poised to gain power in Lebanon and North Korea threatening to abrogate its ceasefire with South Korea, the one area of foreign policy where President Obama has chosen to take a stand is where Israel can build. (Tobin pointed out that this would be an issue even if Tzippi Livni had been elected!) I guess I was wrong to dismiss reports of a clash coming between Obama and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu needs to be careful. He cannot allow himself to be bullied. He has a stronger base of support at home than he had thirteen years ago. He must make the case that ceding territory to hostiles is a recipe for disaster not peace and that the United States and the world has much bigger worries than where Jews live. It won’t be easy, but that’s his job.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (6)

The Obama peace plan: Pressure Israel, pressure Israel, pressure Israel

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The One, palestinian politics — Tags: Israel, Obama, Palestinians — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

It looks like the Chicken Littles may have been right. The Obama camp is calling for Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including building in the suburbs of Jerusalem—which is hardly a “settlement.”

Meanwhile Clinton said Obama had “made it very clear” to Netanyahu that he expects a total freeze in the settlements. “He wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” Clinton said on Wednesday during a visit by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit.

So the Obama administration’s peace plan is essentially an appease plan: Israel is not going to be allowed to grow the suburbs of Jerusalem (Ma’aleh Adumim). Yeah, that’ll go over well. So, what are the Obama plans for the Palestinians?

“We think it is in the best interest of the effort that we are engaged in, that settlement expansion cease,” she said. “That is our position, that is what we have communicated very clearly not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point,” she said.

Ah. Pressure Israel. I see.

Obama will be meeting with Abbas this week. I’m guessing that the Palestinians are not going to be told that they have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, give up any hope of millions of Palestinians settling in Israel rather than the Palestinian state, and stop teaching their children that there is no Jewish claim to the city of Jerusalem and inciting against Jews.

But hey, the settlements are the real reason there’s no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Not intransigence. Not “resistance.” Not Palestinian corruption. Settlements.

Comments (1)

05/21/2009

The sport of Bibi bashing

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Binyamin Netanyahu — Soccerdad @ 10:30 am

There’s something tasteless about headlining a “news analysis” Keeping score on Obama vs. Netanyahu (via memeorandum), but I suppose there will be a lot of this over the next three or four years as the media try to score points against Netanyahu. Bashing Bibi is a popular journalistic and diplomatic sport.

But Mr. Obama did not get his settlement freeze. In fact, Mr. Netanyahu told him it would be politically difficult for him to halt the construction of settlements. That is a hurdle to the administration’s broader peace objectives because Israel’s Arab neighbors have characterized a freeze as a precondition for them to establish normal relations.

Nor did Mr. Obama get much from Mr. Netanyahu on a peace plan beyond his promise to make good on a few commitments that Israel had already agreed to on the “road map,” an outline of peace steps that has not gotten either Palestinians or Israelis any closer to peace since President George W. Bush first announced it in 2003.

Mr. Netanyahu did agree to resume talks with Palestinians without preconditions. But he would not explicitly endorse the notion of an eventual Palestinian state, something his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had already done.

“This is why I’m asking the question, did our president get suckered?” said Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel and director of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. “We don’t know the answer yet, but unless he got something more from Bibi in that meeting than they’re telling us, that question can be asked.”

Indyk, of course, as Ambassador to Israel was very much into scoring points against Netanyahu when he served in that post, and it got the Clinton administration Ehud Barak, Camp David and the Aqsa Intifada.

But if the President didn’t get his “settlement freeze, why is that possibly a loss for President Oama? Despite its being touted as a necessary precondition for the Arab world to drop their official antisemitism, there’s no guarantee it would work.

Still Secretary of State Clinton announced that a “settlement freeze” is an American demand to terror TV channel Al Jazeera.

Still no amount of pressure will create a Palestinian State if that isn’t the goal of the Palestinians (via memeorandum).

Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs’ notorious response: “No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.”

At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in “compensation” for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel’s history.

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel’s liquidation. “The whole world” may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.

And as long as the Palestinians remain uncommitted to peaceful coexistence no amount of pressure on Israel will bring peace to the Middle East.

So after President Obama meets with Abu Mazen will we see scorecards about who “won” the encounter? Or whether Abu Mazen will endorse the concept of a Jewish state enthusiastically?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

05/07/2009

Will Obama throw Israel under the bus?

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

There’s a very disturbing story in the Washington Times that says that the Obama administration is going to try to pressure Israel into signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The problem with that is that signing the treaty would require Israel to give up her nukes—something that is absolutely not in the best interests of Israel. And signatories of the NPT are pursuing nuclear weapons—for example, Iran.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

“Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.

If this story is true—if Obama tells Bibi Netanyahu when they meet on May 18th that Israel must give up her nuclear weapons—then it will be the beginning of a whole new tack to the Israeli-American relationship, and it will not be a good one. The Times also profiles how America has protected Israel’s nuclear program for forty years, once it was revealed that Israel had the bomb. There is an apt quote by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regarding Israel’s nukes.

“Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn’t threaten any country with anything, never did. The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?”

And that’s the crux of the matter. Israel has no intention of using nuclear weapons to obliterate another country. Iran’s leaders constantly discuss how easily they could destroy Israel, how little time it would take, and how Israel can’t absorb the damage of a nuclear weapon, but Iran could.

America is currently terrified that the Taliban will get hold of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India nearly launched a nuclear war in 2002. Pakistan has given nuclear technology to Iran, Syria, Libya, and who knows how many other countries. North Korea almost managed to get a working nuclear reactor in Syria, but the IDF bombed it before it progressed too far. And yet, it is always Israel that comes to the fore in these discussions. Funny how that works.

President Obama has no compunctions about using Chicago-style pressure in every aspect of his administration. If he decides to use the same strong-arm tactics now, it will be devastating for Israel, but it will be equally as devastating for the rest of the world. Iran isn’t going to stop trying to get nukes. And making Israel get rid of the weapons that protect her from a nuclear-armed Iran isn’t going to stop Iran from continuing its race to development.

It’s possible that this is yet another balloon being floated and will come to nothing. But I’ve never trusted Obama on, well, anything, let alone his stance on Israel. I’m going to bide my time and wait to see what happens after he meets with Netanyahu in nine days.

Comments (2)

05/06/2009

Obama: Treat your friends like enemies, and your enemies like friends

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

So Obama is willing to stretch out “the hand of friendship” to Iran, but he’s going to be more “forceful” with Israel.

Gen. James Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be “forceful” with Israel.

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told an AIPAC conference last night that two states for two peoples is the only solution the United States is committed to.

Let’s stop and think. One of these countries funds Hamas and Hezbullah and has trained forces fighting against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. The other trains American troops in city fighting techniques for use in Iraq, passes along intelligence information about America’s enemies, gives America any help asked for and partners with American technology firms to help improve the world. By all means, then, let’s treat Israel like the enemy, and force her to negotiate with the Palestinians on the Palestinians’ terms, but let Iran dictate the terms of its negotiations with America.

Because that’s what makes the most sense. One nation is a reliable ally. The other is an enemy working against American interests. But hey, the “realists” all think that as the Palestinians go, so goes the Middle East—in spite of the fact that before 1967, all hands in the Middle East were against Israel. (They still are, mostly—there is just a cold peace in two bordering states.)

Yes, indeed. Smart power in the Age of Obama. You just can’t beat it.

Comments (5)

Baker’s twenty

Filed under: Bidenisms, Iran, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: James Baker — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

It’s been 20 years since Secretary of State Baker delivered his notorious “Greater Israel” speech to AIPAC.

Looking over the speech now, it preserves a moment in time. It doesn’t seem as shocking now as it did when he delivered. In fact in many ways it seems rather balanced.

Of course, probably part of the problem with the speech was, as then-reporter Thomas Friedman observed:

The Secretary of State’s speech was striking for the unsentimental and unusually blunt tone with which he addressed the Israelis, for the carefully balanced manner in which he called on both sides to make concessions for peace and for the clear endorsement he gave Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s proposal for elections in the West Bank and Gaza as a basis for breaking the Middle East deadlock.

A lot has changed since then. Israel has ceded territory to the Palestinians and has been rewarded with increased terror. (From Fatah, especially after September, 2000 until Defensive Shielf and from Hamas, especially after the “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005.) But even the baby steps that Baker demanded of the Palestinians, still have not been fulfilled. The continued Palestinian refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state demonstrates that the Palestinian’s covenant effectively remains in force.

For Palestinians, now is the time to speak with one voice for peace. Renounce the ‘policy of phases’ in all languages, not just those addressed to the West. Practise constructive diplomacy, not attempts to distort international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. Amend the covenant. Translate the dialogue of violence in the intifada into a dialogue of politics and diplomacy. Violence will not work. Reach out to Israelis and convince them of your peaceful intentions. You have the most to gain from doing so, and no one else can or will do it for you. Finally, understand that no one is going to deliver Israel for you.

And of course, even now, the Palestinians expect the Americans to deliver Israel for them. And based on this year’s AIPAC conference, the new administration appears quite happy to do so.

Fresno Zionism summarizes Vice President Biden’s speech like this:

His argument is that Iran “exploits” the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts in order to extend its influence into the Sunni world, something which would be otherwise “counter-intuitive”. Biden says that the continuation of the conflicts “strengthens Iran’s position”. The conflicts “give Iran a playing field upon which to extend its influence, sponsor extremist sentiments, inflame public opinion”. So in Biden’s view, ending the conflict would pull the rug out from under Iran.

But he notes:

Iran is not so much making use of the conflict as creating it. Any actual moderate Palestinians have been suppressed in favor of extremists who are either Iranian proxies themselves or take advantage of the climate they have created. This makes it hard — impossible — to end the conflict while Iran pulls the strings.

And Biden wasn’t alone attempting to deliver Israel for the Palestinians. And there’s some history that’s being repeated.

With Biden and Kerry following Baker’s footsteps by putting diplomatic pressure on Israel at the AIPAC conference, it’s interesting to note this observation from the New York Times (via memeorandum):

Speeches are scrutinized closely at Aipac events. As a presidential candidate in June 2008, Barack Obama spoke to Aipac to counter whispers in the American Jewish community that he was insufficiently committed to Israel. Mr. Obama told the group that he regarded them as “friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.”

Mr. Obama went on to win an estimated 78 percent of the Jewish vote, a figure higher than that won four years earlier by Mr. Kerry.

It’s ironic, then, that the fear of those who questioned President Obama’s commitment to American’s ally, Israel, is now being realized.

UPDATE: I should be clear about two things.

Baker’s speech, even if it doesn’t seem so hostile twenty years later, was a big deal at the time and set the tone for the Bush administration’s dealings with Israel.

The other is that politically Israel has changed a lot. Even “right wing” PM Binyamin Netanyahu today is closer in outlook to Peace Now’s position of twenty years ago than he his to Yitzchak Shamir’s. Israeli concessions have irrevocably changed Israel’s political landscape, the same cannot be said of the Palestinians who haven’t had anyone tell them that they have to put aside their dreams of a “greater Palestine.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

05/05/2009

Ship of fools sinks

Filed under: Gaza, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

The ship that took the Free Gaza nitwits to a clash with the Israeli navy sank yesterday. Say buh-bye, boat!

Free Gaza group spokesman Ramzi Kysia said the 66-foot yacht SS Dignity sank while being moved from a marina to the port of Larnaca because of bad weather. He said no foul play was suspected but that police are investigating the incident.

The Dignity was seriously damaged in December in a collision with an Israeli navy ship. The activists said the navy rammed the Dignity, while Israel said the boat tried to outmaneuver an Israeli vessel and crashed into it.

Funny, I don’t recall reading about any of these same people trying to bring supplies to Sudan after the UN aid groups were thrown out. You’d think that they don’t care about the Sudanese starving—apparently, they only care about the Palestinians who, uh, aren’t starving.

But then again, if they tried to bring a load of supplies into Sudan (not by ship, of course), they’d probably meet the same fate as the UN aid groups: A welcome by the Sudanese Arab militias. Sure, they’d make headlines after they were dead, but then, they wouldn’t really go into a war zone where there was a chance of actually getting hurt, would they?

Apparently not.

Comments (0)

04/28/2009

What’s a Jewish state got to with it?

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Isabel Kershner of the NY Times reports that “moderate” Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on Monday dismissed a demand by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, underscoring the considerable gaps between the sides.

“I do not accept it,” Mr. Abbas said in a speech in Ramallah, in the West Bank. “It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic — it is none of my business,” he added, according to Reuters.

Mr. Netanyahu, who took office almost a month ago, has refused to endorse the notion of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel as a solution for the conflict, as many nations urge. But he says Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people is crucial for progress in any future talks.

Netanyahu changed his stance a little from his original statement and said that no agreement was possible without the Palestinians accepting Israel as a ~~Palestinian~~ Jewish state. (Thanks to commenter Noam for the catch!)

But it’s misleading to write that Netanyahu doesn’t accept “an independent Palestinian state” as Barry Rubin points out:

But the fact is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution back in 1997 when he took over in the midst of the Oslo agreement peace process and committed himself to all preceding agreements.

And Rubin turns things around.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is this: much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

The first problem is that the demand is totally one-sided. Does the PA truly accept a two-state solution? That isn’t what it tells its own people in officials’ speeches, documents of the ruling Fatah group, schools, the sermons of PA-appointed clerics, and the PA-controlled media.

The second problem is that PA compliance with its earlier commitments is pretty miserable, though this is a point that almost always goes unmentioned in Western diplomatic declarations and media.

Since 1993, Israel has given the Palestinian Authority legitimacy (the PLO supposedly renounced violence in return for no longer being considered a terrorist organization), territory ( Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Tulkarem, Kalkilye, Nablus, Jenin and all of Gaza) arms, money and the Palestians have failed to keep a single term (no violence, no incitement against Israel) of the Oslo agreements. Given that Abbas has done nothing for Israel, the question really should be whether or not Abbas (or any leader of the PA) accepts the notion of an independent Jewish state living alongside a Palestinian state. Abbas’s latest makes it clear that the answer is most likely “no.”

Kershner goes on:

During a trip to the region in mid-April, President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, said the two-state solution was the “only solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving the conservative-leaning Mr. Netanyahu and his predominantly right-wing government little room for maneuver.

Abbas is clearly expressing his own hesitations about a two state solution and yet Kershner doesn’t mention anything about his “room to maneuver.”

Kershner, though, does get credit for this:

In an attempt to bolster the Palestinian argument, Mr. Erekat on Monday produced a copy of a letter signed by President Harry S. Truman on May 14, 1948. In its original form, it recognizes the provisional government of the new Jewish state, but the typed words “Jewish state” in the second paragraph have been crossed out and replaced with the handwritten “State of Israel.”

Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Mr. Erekat was misinterpreting the American president’s intention. According to Mr. Avineri, the Truman letter had been prepared hours before Israel declared its independence, before the new country had chosen its name.

It’s nice to see an American paper quoting Shlomo Avineiri again. And it’s all too familiar seeing a “moderate” Palestinian trying to rewrite history.

Yaacov Lozowick considers Abbas’s statement to be “not news:”

The peculiar thing about this is that it’s not news. It has been the official Palestinian position ever since they began recognizing Israel’s existence, somewhere between the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it effectively negates the recognition because it assumes large numbers of Palestinians will move into Israel, thus turning it into a bi-national state at best. No official Palestinian spokesman ever said otherwise, no matter how moderate he purports to be. This is the main reason why even Olmert and Livni never got close to a peace agreement with Abbas during the 18 months or so of their talks: the positions of the two sides are too far apart.

Shmuel Rosner expects that Abbas’s outburst will strengthen Netanyahu domestically. (Rosner’s Israel Factor panel doesn’t foresee a major confrontation between Israel and the United States over a two state solution.) Israel Matzav picks up another immoderate suggestion by Abbas: that Hamas divide into political and military “wings” so that they can receive American funding. (What? They weren’t already divided into wings?) And Yid With Lid notices that Abbas essentially said give us all we want, then we’ll talk.

Not surprisingly Bashar Assad says roughly the same thing.

Syrian President Bashar Assad believes that the return of the Golan Heights is a condition for peace talks between his country and Israel, but at the same time does not foresee such negotiations happening in the near future.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

04/26/2009

Lieberman’s call for two-state solution ignored by MSM

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias, Syria — Meryl Yourish @ 10:45 am

The media have portrayed Avigdor Lieberman as a rabid anti-Arab bigot who refuses to adhere to the Two-state Solution School of Middle East Politics. So I read with interest this article in Ynet the other day, and waited for the MSM to pick up on this very important change in Lieberman’s—and by extension, Netanyahu’s—public statements.

Israel’s controversial foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, openly promoted the concept of two states for two people, London-based Egyptian newspaper al-Hayat reported on Saturday.

According to the paper, Lieberman was “incredibly moderate” during a meeting with Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s Intelligence Chief. Suleiman visited Israel last week, meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres.

[...] The paper quoted the source as saying that “Lieberman was incredibly moderate and spoke with Suleiman about the peace process and negotiations. He presented the two-state solution as a means to promote security, stability and peace in the region.

Here’s what AP’s latest Israel story reports in its explanation of the two-state solution, near the end of a story about the IDF catching the terrorist who murdered a child with an axe:

Lieberman has rejected the Annapolis process.

“I don’t think it’s right to immediately agree to negotiations on a final accord,” Lieberman told Army Radio. “The political process must begin at the beginning, not the end.”

Netanyahu has resisted pressure to declare support for the creation of a Palestinian state, and Lieberman has said Israeli concessions have only brought more violence.

Meantime, Reuters manages to spin Syria as the moderate in the Israel/Syria conflict.

Lieberman, an ultranationalist coalition partner to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the less than month-old government was still formulating foreign policy but made clear he saw Syria’s bedrock demand for the Golan as up for debate.

This is not the view from Damascus, which says Israel, which annexed the Golan in a move not recognized abroad, is legally required to return it along with other occupied Arab territory.

And yet, I am not surprised that the wire services don’t report on what is seemingly a sharp change in Lieberman’s policy. Because we do not get objective reporting from the mainstream media on Israel. We get narrative. And it doesn’t fit the narrative that Lieberman is open to the two-state solution. Therefore, it is ignored.

Really, though—painting Syrias as the moderate partner in the Golan issue is beyond the pale. Syria bombarded Israeli farmers for decades from the Golan Heights. Funny how when the media report on the Golan, their history stops at June 4, 1967. Because if they were to mention its prehistory, they’d have to make people understand why Israel doesn’t want to give back the Golan.

Comments (0)

04/19/2009

Preoccupied with occupation

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time — Tags: Occupation — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

Back in 2002, Efraim Karsh wrote an article “What Occupation?,” which gave a history of how Israel came to control Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza as well as the overall beneficial effects it had on the Palestinians. I recommend the whole article, but his conclusion is excellent.

It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians’ rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham, a few years later wrote “Why Israel is free to set its own borders.” Like Karsh’s article it is well worth reading in its entirety, Krauss and Pham summarize their findings:

It is beyond the scope of this essay to consider why much of the world (including, alas, the United States) has seen fit to assign to Israel the unhappy epithet of “occupier.” But one of the most striking findings for those who do research in this area is that the term “occupied territories” seems to apply only to Israel’s administration of the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza). The term is rarely if ever used in discussing other bitter, long-standing territorial disputes. Indian Kashmir, for instance, is merely a “disputed region” in the eyes of the U.S. Department of State. Nor is it easy to find international actors ready to point an accusing finger at “occupation forces” in Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus or, for that matter, in Quebec, Catalonia, and Ulster. When it comes to the concept of “occupied territory,” Israel would appear–unjustly–to have a monopoly.

None of this is to suggest that Israel’s legal and historical claims to sovereignty in the West Bank require it to remain there. But neither is it required to consult either the Palestinian Arabs or the self-appointed representatives of the “international community” if it decides to withdraw from some territory and determine its own borders. As Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert have argued, it may well be in Israel’s national interest to disentangle itself, as much as prudence requires, from the Palestinians and the territory in which they predominate. As many Israelis see it, to do any less might court the risk of Israel’s itself becoming an “occupied territory”–and at the hands of a far less benign power.

As Krauss and Pham conclude, the term “occupation” has the effect of forcing Israel to satisfy ever last demand of the Palestinians. As long as Israel is an occupier it is in the wrong and effectively responsible for the violence in the Middle East.

Let’s go back to Saeb Erakat’s interview with Al Jazeera last week. Erakat concludes with:

They will never have this. Like President Abu Mazen said in front of President Bush and PM Olmert: I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.

Erakat uses “occupation” and “international law” as justifications for refusing any compromise on Jerusalem. I don’t think this is an accident. Erakat (and the Palestinian leadership) know that “occupation” gives them the ultimate veto on the peace process. Either Israel abides by Palestinian demands or it remains an occupier.

“Occupation” also serves a purpose for the international community and the West in particular. It makes the conflict in the Middle East both understandable and soluble. If Palestinian nationalism is fundamentally a function of antisemitism, it is neither. If terrorism is perpetrated without an understandable motive, it can’t be stopped. But if it is based on a pretext, then terrorism can be explained and perhaps understood. (”While I deplore the tactics, I can understand the feelings of dispossession …”) And it can also be defused.

So “occupation” is quite convenient from a diplomatic standpoint. It identifies the cause of the hostility that leads to terror and since the one government in the area that is guilty of “occupation” is susceptible to political pressure, the problem of terror has an achievable solution. Never mind that, as Karsh points out, since sometime in the mid 90’s 99% of the Palestinians no longer lived under Israeli control - despite some restrictions to their freedom, “occupation” is portrayed as more of an obstacle to peace in the Middle East than terrorism.

So the Palestinians can remain intransigent and embrace terror, but the pressure will be put on Israel to make peace. The preoccupation with “occupation” may be convenient, but it is ultimately counterproductive and destructive.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

04/14/2009

Israeli Double Standard Time in plain sight

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Meryl Yourish @ 10:00 am

You know, it’s not enough that the world pushes the Palestinian problem at Israel, while utterly ignoring the fact that an equal number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries right after the establishment of the State of Israel. The AP displays yet another example of Israeli Double Standard Time: Now, Israel must resettle Christian refugees within Israel—that are already in Israel—and the Pope must help them do it.

Displaced during war decades ago, the Christians of Biram have never given up their dream of returning to this destroyed village in the hills of northern Israel. They still hold Easter rites, weddings and funerals in a stone church, the only building left standing.

Now, they are pinning their hopes on Pope Benedict XVI, who is visiting the Holy Land in May. Biram’s former residents and their descendants, some 3,000 Catholics altogether, are asking their spiritual leader to speak for them.

They were driven out of Biram during the 1948 war. Most Israeli leaders who dealt with Biram’s case refused their repatriation, fearing it would set a precedent for millions of Palestinian refugees seeking to return to former properties.

[...] Most fled to neighboring Arab countries, but some, like those of Biram, remained within Israel’s borders and became citizens. Some of Biram’s 1,000 residents left for nearby Lebanon, but most stayed within Israel’s newly created borders, mostly in the nearby Arab-Israeli village of Jish.

There simply isn’t a cause the AP won’t bash Israel with. Has the AP ever written about the displacement of Jews in Arab countries after the establishment of the Israel? Take a look at the population of Jews in Arab lands before and after Israel’s establishment.

What time is it? That’s right. It’s Israeli Double Standard Time, the time that occurs only on days that end with a Y.

Comments (0)

03/22/2009

Major newspaper seems fated to cast Israel in the worst possible light

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Netanyahu — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

I suppose that the article Israeli Coalition Appears Fated to Clash With U.S. isn’t nearly as bad as the title. Still it’s got some problems. For example, early on the reporter, Howard Schneider writes:

A leading contender to become defense minister once characterized the two-state solution that forms the basis of U.S. and international policy toward Israel and the Palestinians as “a story the Western world tells with Western eyes.”

At the end he identifies the candidate:

A top contender for defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, has opposed territorial concessions to the Palestinians for security reasons. As military chief of staff under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, he opposed the Gaza withdrawal and lost his job.

And how exactly did the withdrawal from Gaza work out? Well elsewhere Schneider described it like this:

Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but the move did not bring the expected quiet. Rockets and mortars fall regularly into Israeli towns. The Islamist group Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections and, about a year later, forced the rival Fatah faction out of Gaza.

“Fall regularly?!?!” Does he mean like manna from heaven? For crying out loud, rockets and mortars don’t fall passively, they are fired by people with murderous intent. No matter how Schneider tries to softpedal it, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza did damage Israel’s security. It made things less peaceful. And yet he describes Gen. Yaalon’s hesitation to withdraw from territory as a liability!

And the biggest problem according to Schneider is the Prime Minster apparent.

Israel’s next government seems tailor-made for conflict with an administration in Washington that supports a Palestinian state and is expected to push for progress on drawing its borders. Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu is himself a skeptic when it comes to Palestinian statehood and has referred to U.S.-backed peace talks as a waste of time.

Of course with the recent revelations that Fatah the main constituent organization of the Palestinian Authority - as well as purported “moderates” - doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist (though this isn’t really news) or that Fatah continues to incite against Israel don’t make it onto Schneider’s radar. Also Fatah seems more inclined to reconcile with Hamas - in a move that will make peace with Israel impossible - than to come to an agreement with Israel. As Barry Rubin writes:

Despite this, the relationship between Hamas and Fatah remain quite complex. It seems bizarre that Hamas set off a civil war, murdered Fatah men in cold blood, and kicked the group out of Gaza yet still most of Fatah is ready to forgive it. There is a strong likelihood that if given the choice, Fatah leaders—though not necessarily Abbas himself—would prefer conciliation with Hamas, which would make any peace with Israel impossible—to making a diplomatic deal with Israel and getting a Palestinian state.
From Israel’s standpoint, of course, how can it negotiate any comprehensive solution with the PA when it cannot deliver half of the territory, people, and armed men who are supposed to be bound by such an agreement? Moreover, the possibility that either Hamas will overthrow Fatah at some future point or even that the two will join together in a new war against Israel rather puts a damper on Israeli willingness to make concessions.

Schneider is probably accurately portraying the Obama administration’s interest in having an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And he’s identified a likely source of contention between a Netanyahu government and the Americans. But the Israeli reticence towards further concessions or negotiations is well founded. It’s a shame that the administration (and Schneider) are dismissive about Netanyahu’s concerns.

Shmuel Rosner reports:

Netanyahu might think that his refusal to utter the term “Two State Solution” is ideologically justified and logically sound. He might think that Tzipi Livni’s attempt to argue that this was the reason for which she’s refused to join his coalition is lame. No matter what he thinks, Washington - official Washington - doesn’t like this revisionist position. One official told me it was just “childish”. When Netanyahu comes for a visit, he might be asked to make a choice. The price for press availability with President Obama will be a commitment to say the words “two”, “state” and “solution” in the same sentence.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

03/20/2009

Newspapers investigate journalistic misconduct - not!

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Jenin — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Following on the heels of the Ha’aretz report that soldiers did not abide by the IDF’s code of morality, the NYT reports Soldiers’ Accounts of Gaza Killings Raise Furor in Israel (via memeorandum)

The testimonies by soldiers, leaked to the newspapers Maariv and Haaretz, appeared in a journal published by a military preparatory course at the Oranim Academic College in the northern town of Tivon. The newspapers promised to release more such anecdotal accounts on Friday, without saying how many.

The academy’s director, Dany Zamir, told Israel Radio, “Those were very harsh testimonies about unjustified shooting of civilians and destruction of property that conveyed an atmosphere in which one feels entitled to use unrestricted force against Palestinians.”

The revelations caused an immediate uproar here, with some soldiers and reservists saying they did not recognize the stories being told as accurate.

Nice of Bronner to acknowledge that not everyone believes these stories to be accurate.

The Washington Post weighs in with Israeli Military Probes Possible Troop Misconduct in Gaza War

Zamir, who leads the Rabin Pre-Military Academy in Oranim, in northern Israel, held a meeting this year for alumni of the program to meet with prospective students, according to an IDF spokeswoman.

Some of the alumni had served in Operation Cast Lead, the 22-day Israeli offensive in December and January aimed at the Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip. What they said “shocked us,” Zamir said, according to Thursday’s published reports. The institute, which has a curriculum that focuses on Jewish and military values, published the stories in a newsletter sent to its graduates. Zamir also contacted the IDF chief of staff.

Approximately 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, were killed during the war, according to figures released by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The operation was launched in response to rocket fire into Israel by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups. Thirteen Israelis died during the operation, including three civilians.

In an interview broadcast on Israel Radio, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he considered Israel’s military “the most moral in the world,” though “that doesn’t mean there are no exceptions.”

Jameel, who did not serve, but knew some soldiers who did, writes:

Now, I know plenty of soldiers who saw action in Gaza during the “Cast Lead” operation, and no one that I know saw anything remotely similar to what Haaretz described.

Fast forward to a few minutes ago. Channel 2 TV Army correspondent Roni Daniel stated at 6:30 PM this evening, that he personally tracked down one of the soldiers interviewed for the Haaretz article. Apparently the soldier’s testimony to Haaretz wasn’t based on anything he personally saw or witnessed, rather based on rumors and hearsay he heard (and the soldier wasn’t even in Gaza!)

Truth is rarely important to Haaretz, as long as it can bash the IDF, Israel, settlers, religious Jews, or anyone not agreeing with them.

Though the Times and Post didn’t get around to this, Yediot Ahronot (Ynet) published a report that contradicts the Ha’aretz scoop. (h/t Israel Matzav)

It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the troops represented Israel honorably,’ soldier says in response to claims of immoral behavior during Operation Cast Lead. Reservist: Claims ‘fictitious’. ‘Free Gaza’ movement demands international investigation

Israel Matzav concludes:

Knowing the extent to which the IDF goes to avoid harming civilians, claiming that there were widespread violations of its ethical code during Operation Cast Lead strain credibility.

Elder of Ziyon observes:

The next few days will be interesting, as we will see if any IDF soldiers step up to corroborate the stories told earlier. What is clear, however, is that if there were any lapses it was not because of IDF policy nor from the conduct of the vast majority of soldiers.

Equally clear is that the world will harshly judge an entire people based on the the slightest, out-of-context and possibly fictional claims. Certainly they should be investigated but not by a world that has already convicted Israel.

Elder of Ziyon isn’t making that charge up either. I checked the NY Times archive for the supposed Jenin massacre seven years ago. Headlines tell me that the Times was promoting the story as a possible massacre that Israel did not want investigated.

On August 2, 2002, The Times finally reported that a UN commission found that no massacre had been committed. Great, so the Times followed the story and noted when their version fell apart. Well actually, that gives the Times much too much credit.

You see about two weeks after the attack an Israeli officer, Dr. David Zangen gave an account that contradicted the overblown charges.

Dr. Zangen, who found himself in the eye of the storm, is appalled at the attempt to portray the IDF as an immoral army. “There are those who say that the events in Jenin were like a holocaust. However, if you were to enter the camp, you would find that only a few dozen homes were destroyed. These were homes that were booby-trapped for the purpose of killing soldiers. This was a fortress of terrorism. 200 terrorists wired up the camp with booby-traps, they took control of it and recruited suicide bombers at every opportunity. In recent years, a third of the suicide bombers have come from the Jenin refugee camp. We found photo albums with pictures of children wearing explosive belts; studio photographs of future shahidim [martyrs], children aged between 16 and 18, who want to kill Israelis in suicide attacks. All the homes in the refugee camp are covered with wall-to-wall pictures of martyrs. It is unbelievable. These [martyrs] are their heroes.

Their aim was to carry out suicide attacks against the IDF soldiers. If there were innocent civilians in the area, they were either the hostages of the terrorists or collaborators. In any case, during each stage of the fighting, we called out to all those who did not want to fight - to leave the homes. The terrorists exploited the departure of these people, and they were shooting at us.”

Though Zangen’s remarks were published, the Times did not see fit to report them. Rather the Times waited three months, keeping Israel on the defensive. And the Times even brought back Serge Schmeman to help with the reporting duties at that time, so ignoring Zangen had to have been willful.

Though Bronner reported that it was possible that not all the charges against the IDF may be accurate, he did little reporting to support that claim. Given the Jenin experience don’t expect the MSM to behave fairly towards Israel now.

I anxiously await a story headlined: “Hamas investigating charges that civilians were targeted.” I won’t hold my breath.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (4)

03/19/2009

The anti-Zionist elephant

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias — Tags: Anti-Zionism — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Ethan Bronner reports in After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation.

But in the weeks since its Gaza war, and as it prepares to inaugurate a hawkish right-wing government, it is facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades.

Examples abound. Its sports teams have met hostility and violent protests in Sweden, Spain and Turkey. Mauritania has closed Israel’s embassy.

Relations with Turkey, an important Muslim ally, have suffered severely. A group of top international judges and human rights investigators recently called for an inquiry into Israel’s actions in Gaza. “Israel Apartheid Week” drew participants in 54 cities around the world this month, twice the number of last year, according to its organizers. And even in the American Jewish community, albeit in its liberal wing, there is a chill.

Bronner, of course, provides some reasons:

Of course, for Israel’s critics, including those who firmly support the existence of a Jewish state, the problem is not one of image but of policy. They point to four decades of occupation, the settling of half a million Israeli Jews on land captured in 1967, the economic strangling of Gaza for the past few years and the society’s growing indifference toward the creation of a Palestinian state as reasons Israel has lost favor abroad, and they say that no amount of image buffing will change that.

Israel’s use of enormous force in the Gaza war in January crystallized much of this criticism.

The issue of a Palestinian state is central to Israel’s reputation abroad, because so many governments and international organizations favor its establishment in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. And while the departing government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert negotiated for such a state, the incoming one of Benjamin Netanyahu says that item is not on its immediate agenda.

This is a phony argument. Israel has ceded land to the Palestinians and has done more to create a Palestinian state than any Arab government and is still faulted for the failure to create such a state. Arafat, who never gave up terror, led the Palestinians for 11 years after Oslo was signed never was interested in creating a state. And now Israel has a mini state on its border that’s ruled by Hamas. This, in fact has been a consistent result of Israeli withdrawals and giving land over to terrorists: whether it was Tulkarm, Bethlehem, Kalkilyeh, Nablus, Ramallah and Jenin in 1995; southern Lebanon in 2000; or Gaza in 2005, Israeli withdrawals have strengthened terrorists not made peace more likely.

Fatah has made it clear that it doesn’t really accept Israel’s right to exist. And yet much of the world is appalled that Avigdor Lieberman - who believes in a two state solution - will be joining the Israeli government.

It is not the Israeli failure to create a Palestinian state that is behind Israel’s isolation. It is the uncritical acceptance of the Palestinian (and Arab) grievance against Israel. The more it is tolerated, the less effort the Arabs must expend in seeking coexistence.

And Bronner fails to mention many of the factors involved. While he can cite the anti-Israel activities in Europe he assumes that they’re a reaction to Israel, not based in antisemitism. But as Muslims in Europe flex their political muscles the antisemitism comes into the open. They use the pretext that it’s a reaction Israeli actions and Bronner doesn’t question their motives.

And there’s the selective applicability of international law, the advocacy of NGO’s for the Palestinians and a media that is all too willing to distort the news to Israel’s detriment. These are many of the forces arrayed against Israel, seeking to undermine its legitimacy, but Bronner doesn’t really illuminate these forces.

Another complicating factor is that eight years ago, under similar circumstances, Israel had a strong advocate in the American government. The current administration is not as likely to defend Israel as its predecessor. So yes, after Israel has spent fifteen years making concessions and being rewarded with terror, it’s now being isolated. But to pin it on Israel’s defense of its southern population is to miss the big picture.

Anti-Zionism (and antisemitism) is gaining even more acceptability - it’s the elephant in the room of international relations - and the paper of record looks the other way.

Please also see Israel Matzav’s take.

UPDATE: Barry Rubin has a different perspective, but is also critical of the Times.

Again, I am not arguing there is nothing to deal with or nothing to worry about. Yet a firm distinction should always be made between government policies and anti-Israel protests. The Turkish and Spanish governments are more anti-Israel. The American, Australian, British, Canadian, French, German, Italian, all the Central European, and many other governments are friendlier than they have often been. Compare the level of Israeli relations with China, India, and Russia in the past.

But why were there all those big and sometimes violent demonstrations in Europe? Could they have something to do with the fact that there are all those large Muslim and often Arab emigrant communities who have brought their hatred of Israel with them? No, that’s a story the Times fears to tell.

As for American Jews, if the Times stopped promoting tiny anti-Israel groups posing as liberal pro-Israel groups that have no serious base of their own, perhaps it wouldn’t be under such illusions.

If Israel faces threats, they are real ones stemming from Iran and its nuclear weapons’ drive, Hamas, and Hizballah. They may arise from Western policies—which the Times favors—of ending any attempt to isolate Iran and Syria.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Update from Meryl
Attention readers coming here from Yahoo! News: I know many of you are not used to seeing such a pro-Israel site, and the culture shock may be a lot to take. Let me put my comments policy in a nutshell: If I think your comment is too stupid for words, it won’t get approved. Things that I think are too stupid for words: Comments that claim Arabs are Semites, so they can’t be anti-Semites. A tip for you: Look up Wilhelm Marr. Also, any moron who brings up the usual anti-Semitic tropes like the Khazars. As the Brits say: Piss off. And while I have lifted the No Israel-Bashing rule for this post, a comment deemed overly Israel-bashing—by me, not by you—will not be approved. If you have any problems with the above, feel free to complain to the blogger who runs this site. I have never pretended to be objective, and never will. I am, however, proudly Zionist.

Comments (47)

03/18/2009

The double standard of the international law crowd

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

In every argument about Israel, you will hear how Israel is defying X number of UN resolutions, and that Israel is defying international law by continuing to build the separation barrier. It is a mainstay of the anti-Israel crowd that Israel is a rogue state that refuses to get along in the family of nations. And of course, there are many toothless UN resolutions calling on Israel to follow other toothless resolutions. Israel, you see, is supposed to abide by international law, even when there is no Israeli agreement binding the state to the law, and even though the ICC ruling against the fence states that it is an advisory ruling. But Israel must obey international law. So says all of her critics.

And then you have the rest of the world.

“No ICC or Security Council or any other party will change our path or touch an eyelash in our eye,” al-Bashir shouted. “The president of Sudan is not elected by Britain or America. Sudan is an independent country.”

Sudan has been openly defiant of the ICC ruling. Iran supports Sudan. The Arab League rejects the arrest warrant for al-Bashir.

The Arab League rejected an international arrest warrant for Sudan’s president on charges of war crimes in Darfur, and its leader said Qatar had done the same. That clears the way for the beleaguered Sudanese leader to attend an Arab summit there later this month.

“The court asked Qatar and the Arab League at the same time, but our legal position on the matter does not allow what the International Criminal Court is requesting,” Arab League head Amr Moussa said Monday during a visit to Syria.

And you have the head of the UN General Assembly calling the ICC racist:

The indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir on Darfur war crimes charges deepens the perception that international justice is ‘racist,” the president of the UN General Assembly said Tuesday.

[...] “It helps to deepen the perception that international justice is racist because this is the third time that you have something from the ICC and for the third time it has to do with Africa,” he noted.

The other two warrants are as follows:

The ICC has also targeted Democratic Republic of Congo militia leader Thomas Lubanga, who was issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes involving the use of child soldiers during DRC’s five-year civil war tHat ended in 2003.

And it has an outstanding arrest warrant against the shadowy chief of Uganda’s rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, accused of rape, mutilation and murder as well as of forcible recruitment of civilians and child soldiers.

Apparently, the head of the UN General Assembly isn’t interested in justice for African civilians. What concerns him the most? Take a guess.

Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a Roman Catholic priest from Nicaragua with openly leftist views, also reiterated that the more he thinks about the conditions that Israel imposes on the Palestinians, the more he tends “to think about apartheid.”

Yes, the condition of the Palestinian is far more important than the millions killed in Africa. We can actually tell that by the number of UN resolutions regarding each issue. There are almost none for the latter, and dozens for the former.

The attitude of al-Bashir and his supporters is not surprising. International law doesn’t really apply to any nation—except for Israel.

That’s why we invoke Israeli Double Standard Time on issues like these. But don’t worry. It only occurs on days that end with a “y.”

Comments (2)