John Mearsheimer’s speech on Jews: Echoes of the 1930s

Let’s take a walk through history and compare the speech that John Mearsheimer gave to the Palestine Center with a few historical speeches given by two other men who claimed they had nothing, really, against the Jews. Mearsheimer titled his speech “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. New Afrikaners.”

John Mearsheimer:

On the other side we have the new Afrikaners, who will support Israel even if it is an apartheid state. These are individuals who will back Israel no matter what it does, because they have blind loyalty to the Jewish state. This is not to say that the new Afrikaners think that apartheid is an attractive or desirable political system, because I am sure that many of them do not. Surely some of them favor a two-state solution and some of them probably have a serious commitment to liberal values. The key point, however, is that they have an even deeper commitment to supporting Israel unreservedly.

Charles Lindbergh:

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. … As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

John Mearsheimer:

…no American president can put meaningful pressure on Israel to force it to change its policies toward the Palestinians. The main reason is the Israel lobby, a remarkably powerful interest group that has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said, “My generation of Jews . . . became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy.” That lobby, of course, makes it impossible for any president to play hardball with Israel, especially on the issue of settlements.

Charles Lindbergh:

A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic radio priest:

The average Jew, the kind we admire and respect, has been placed in jeopardy by his guilty leaders. He pays for their Godlessness, their persecution of Christians, their attempts to poison the whole world with Communism.

My purpose is to help eradicate from the world its mania for persecution, to help align all good men. Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile, Christian and non-Christian, in a battle to stamp out the ferocity, the barbarism and the hate of this bloody era. I want the good Jews with me, and I’m called a Jew baiter, an anti-Semite.

John Mearsheimer gets the last word:

American Jews who care deeply about Israel can be divided into three broad categories. The first two are what I call “righteous Jews” and the “new Afrikaners,” which are clearly definable groups that think about Israel and where it is headed in fundamentally different ways. The third and largest group is comprised of those Jews who care a lot about Israel, but do not have clear-cut views on how to think about Greater Israel and apartheid. Let us call this group the “great ambivalent middle.”

[…] Righteous Jews have a powerful attachment to core liberal values. They believe that individual rights matter greatly and that they are universal, which means they apply equally to Jews and Palestinians. They could never support an apartheid Israel.

[…] Of course, the new Afrikaners will fiercely defend apartheid Israel, because their commitment to Israel is so unconditional that it overrides any commitment they might have to liberal values.

I can’t see a difference between the three men’s attitudes towards Jews. Can you?

Update: Instalink! Thanks, Glenn.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged , | 32 Comments

Tiggerday

It’s Caturday, and today, I give you Festival of Tig.

Up first: A close-up of Tig on his kitty shelf next to my desk, playing with his long-tailed mousie.

Tigger

Next: Don’t bother me, dude. I’m trying to sleep.

Tigger

This is a frequent view from my shower. Tig jumps up on the vanity and paws at the door.

Tigger

He does this a lot, too, but you can usually see his head when he stretches. Here, he just looks like a headless creature trying to attack a blogger in her shower. It’s a new horror movie monster! The Tiginator!

Tigger

Phew. There’s his head. It’s not a monster after all.

Tigger

Gracie says: Why does Tig get all the attention? (Don’t sweat it, Gracie, your picture day is tomorrow.)

Gracie

Finally, my doofus the goofus, sleeping with that big fat tummy on display. (He’s waddling when he walks. Sigh. I have to stop feeding him so much. But it’s so hard to do.)

Tigger

Posted in Cats | 2 Comments

Chris Muir totally gets me

Witness:

April 30 Day by Day by Chris Muir

He’s totally a candidate for Mr. Meryl Yourish. Too bad he lives in Florida.

Posted in Humor, Mr. Meryl Yourish | 2 Comments

Friday night thoughts

It was a busy day today, and I found other things to do than post or read blogs or much of the news. But I caught up tonight, and when my head comes back down off the ceiling, I will probably tackle John Mearsheimer’s speech about “righteous Jews” vs. “Afrikaner Jews.” But it does prove one of my points on Jew-haters: They constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY steal the language of Jews and try to redefine the terminology—e.g., Arabs are Semites too, so anti-Semitism can’t be used to describe Jew-hating Arabs, the “right of return” v. the Law of Return.

Oh, wait. Mearsheimer isn’t a Jew-hater. He’s a realist. I forgot. The Israel Lobby wasn’t an anti-Semitic screed. It was a realist book on America’s Israel policy, and the Jews who run it.

Looks like you give a Jew-hater enough rope, and he will gladly show you his anti-Semitism.

Noah Pollack’s email to Glenn Reynolds hits the nail on the head about the wrongness of Mearsheimer’s list:

Imagine, as a thought experiment, if a white American professor gave a speech to an organization in Washington and listed, by name, “good blacks” and “bad blacks” — and added that the bad blacks aren’t just wrong, but are blindly loyal to a foreign country. That professor would be out of a job in about five minutes. Mearsheimer will get away with this.

Noah, come on. You’re Jewish. You know the rules: It is always open season on Jews. The pretend golden era immediately following the Holocaust lasted about five minutes.

Say, John Mearsheimer: I’m sending the Yourish.com mantra your way tonight. Say it with me, folks: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | 1 Comment

Iraqi chutzpah

The Iraqi government has been making a request of the Americans:

The soldiers came looking for weapons of mass destruction. What they found in the flooded basement of Saddam Hussein’s secret police headquarters was a legacy of destruction — the demise of one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world.

There was a treasure trove of Torahs and Haggadas, centuries old. And there were marriage records, university applications, financial documents — the living record of a community, seized by the Mukhabarat from the homes of Jews as they fled Iraq under pressure and amid persecution, with only a handful remaining.

Now comes the historical conundrum: Who owns these materials?

In the chaotic aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, the thousands of sodden documents were spirited out of the country with an assist from then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s office and a vague promise of their return once they had been restored. With the materials still sitting in a College Park office building, stabilized but with mold on them, the Iraqi government is demanding that they be shipped back, saying they are the property of the Iraqi people.

“They represent part of our history and part of our identity. There was a Jewish community in Iraq for 2,500 years,” said Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States. “It is time for our property to be repatriated.”

“[O]ur property?”

Former administration official Dov Zakheim, had an appropriate response:

Dov. S. Zakheim, a senior Pentagon official in the George W. Bush administration, is opposed to sending the materials back to Iraq. “I have no sympathy for a government which stole it from the rightful owners and then a successor government saying it belongs to them,” he said.

This isn’t the first time the Iraqis have made this demand. There were a few news stories about it back in January, including this one with the title, Iraq plans to reclaim artifacts of Jewish heritage it shunned, in which we read, on one hand:

“Iraqis must know that we are a diverse people, with different traditions, different religions, and we need to accept this diversity . . . To show it to our people that Baghdad was always multiethnic,’’ said Eskander.

and on the other, this:

Abraham of the Old Testament is believed to have come from the city of Ur, in what is modern-day Iraq, and despite periods of persecution, the community endured and thrived over centuries. But problems worsened when Iraq sided with Germany in World War II, and came to a head when Israel was created. By the early 1950s, Iraqi Jews were fleeing the country in droves. The few thousand who remained were harassed, too frightened to hold services, and their assets seized. In 1969, after Hussein’s Ba’ath Party took power, came the hangings.

There are two other points to consider. One is the case of Mithal Alusi:

Iraqi lawmakers, who have become enraged with fellow parliament member Mithal Alusi for his visits to Israel, now have another reason to be angry with the fiery politician. Alusi hired Iraq’s leading constitutional lawyer to fight the legislature’s attempt to punish him for visiting the Jewish state, and today, he won.

For his desire for normalization with Israel, Alusi has been a pariah and has been attacked. Two of his sons were killed.

And then there’s the story of the tomb of Ezekiel:

Early reports that Iraq plans to retain the Jewish nature of the Tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel are apparently false. Sources in Baghdad say that the government plans to turn it into a mosque and erase all Jewish markings.

Iraq announced earlier this year that it would revamp the ancient burial site, which is located in Al-Kifl, a small town south of Baghdad. The U.S.-backed government announcement implied that its Jewish nature would continue to be emphasized.

Since then, however, reports have surfaced that the government is actually planning to build a mosque there, including removing the ancient Hebew inscriptions that adorn the site. Some reports say that all or some of the lines of Hebrew script have already been erased.

The Iraqis have shown how much they value the “diversity” of their past. They’ve exiled their Jews, punished a fellow citizen for seeking normalization with Israel and are erasing the Jewish origins of Ezekiel. The Iraqis must not be allowed to regain possession of the Jewish archives.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Tagged | Comments Off on Iraqi chutzpah

The NYT’s one sided debate

I did a quick roundup of op-eds appearing at the New York Times website duirng the year 2010. I suppose it may be somewhat arbitrary, but I did a search on the words “Israel” and “Hamas” between January 1, 2010 and April 29, 2010 and limited the resutls to the Opinion section.

I know that doesn’t include unsigned editorials. Nor does it include an op-ed by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. But it also doesn’t include a vicious article by Robert Wright.

My samplng leaves us with 6 articles from February, and 5 each from March and April. Follow the links as I have excerpted these articles, offered comments on each and summaries.

Of those 16 articles only two could possible be described as pro-Israel and one of those was from an Israeli ambassador! Seven of the articles were contributed by Times columnists, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

Truly it’s incredible. Apparently it’s not fashionable at the Times to give supporters of Israel a voice.

The reason I went to this trouble is because of an argument made by the NYT’s current ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, titled “The danger of one-sided debate.” The issue addressed by Hoyt was a column written by Ahmed Youssef a spokesman for Hamas. Here’s Hoyt’s argument:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

Rosenthal and Shipley said that, over time, they try to publish a variety of voices on the most important issues. Regular op-ed readers have seen a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a lot of other information to help judge Yousef’s statements.

Now the argument about allowing Yousef an op-ed column really wasn’t about whether one should be exposed to the views of Hamas as Hoyt misrepresents it. There are plenty of fellow travelers around who would be happy to promote the views of Hamas. The question was whether a newspaper should allow the member of a terrorist organization – and one that doesn’t appreciate the finer points of the first amendment – prime journalistic real estate space. Hoyt avoided the real question, but his answer is revealing. It showed that he (and his newspaper) see fit to debase themselves in the name of “healthy debate.”

The reality that my little exercise shows that regarding Israel, there is no real debate at the New York Times.

The Times would rather give Israel’s enemies the freedom they deny their own people – the freedom of the press. But to Israel, a true democracy, the Times becomes rather stingy in allowing its defenders a voice.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | Tagged | Comments Off on The NYT’s one sided debate

Your Thursday morning snark

Stop making sense, you racist! One of the drafters of the Arizona immigration law has an op-ed in the Times that points out the lies in the propaganda of the law’s opponents—including, of course, our Constitutional scholar of a president.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Susan Rice says Iranian sanctions are “near.” Near what? Albania? Mesopotamia? Albuquerque?

Red on Red: First, Hamas is accusing the Egyptians of flooding a tunnel with poison gas and killing six Palestinians. Now, Hassan Nasrallah, issuing a statement from his latest undisclosed location (poor Chipmunk Cheeks has been unable to come out of hiding since 2007), says that the Egyptian conviction of a Hizballah cell is “unjust.” Of course it is. How dare Egypt charge Hizballah members with being members of Hizballah, especially after Nasrallah admitted they were members of Hizballah? Pass the popcorn and hope that Egypt gets even tougher on the terrorists.

No way this can go wrong: Egypt and Arab states are planning to bring up Israel at the NPT conference this week. Just a reminder: Pakistan, one of the other non-signatories of the NPT, is the nation that sold Iran, Syria, and other nations nuclear technology and helped North Korea get the bomb. Odds on Pakistan’s name coming up? I’d say 189 to 1.

Posted in American Scene, Hamas, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Lebanon | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Your Thursday morning snark

Hezbollah’s next milestone?

Close to a year and a half ago, Meryl observed a news report that despite Security Council resolution 1701, Hezbollah was three times as strong as it had been during its war against Israel in 2006 leading her to snark:

I’m so happy that UN is concentrating on the important things, like a day of mourning for the Palestinians to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the UN partition of the British Mandate. It’s great that Nobel Peace Prize winners are calling for the expulsion of Israel from the UN, but not a nation that has taken an armed terrorist group, responsible for the deaths of Americans and Israelis the world over, into their government and made them legitimate—even as they regularly threaten to use their weapons to destroy Israel.

Now we learn that Hezbollah is actually better armed than many countries! (via memeorandum)

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday that Hezbollah has more missiles than most governments in the world, during a joint press conference with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Washington.

“Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with so many rockets that they are at a point where they have more missiles than most governments in the world,” said Gates.

Barak told reporters that Syria was transferring weapons systems to Hezbollah and that Israel is closely watching the developments, though he assured Israel did not plan to provoke a conflict.

That rapproachment really has gotten Syria and Iran to rein in their client hasn’t it? I wonder what level of arms Hezbollah is shooting for next?

Crossposted on Yourish.

Posted in Iran, Syria | Tagged | Comments Off on Hezbollah’s next milestone?

Hamas, hate and humanitarianism

Robert Mackey writes about an ad that Hamas released implicitly threatening to kill Gilad Schalit.

The video, which was posted on the Web site of the Hamas Qassam Brigades and on YouTube, uses the real voice of the captured solider — from a previously released “proof of life” video — over a computer-generated animation that shows his father wandering forlorn past billboards showing statements from Israeli leaders promising to free his son.

At the end of the video, the elder Mr. Shalit is shown witnessing the return of his son’s coffin — before waking with a scream to realize that this scene had just been a bad dream and his son is still alive. The video then ends with the words, “There is still hope.”

It’s odd the way Mackey portrays the release of the video; he notes that a leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar objected to the video.

On Monday, the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency reported, Mr. Zahar said the video’s implied threat “does not reflect the official position of the Hamas government.” He added: “We do not kill Israeli soldiers who are prisoners … our morals and religion forbid us to do so.”

Israelly Cool is skeptical.

Mackey somehow fails to note that Israel allowed the daughter of a Hamas minister to receive medical treatment in Jordan.

But Hamas objected when Reuters published a paid advertisement asking for information leading to the freeing of Israeli prisoners.

Brothers of Judea share the Huffington Post love expressed for Gilad Schalit.

Why does Mackey see fit to emphasize the dubious protest of Zahar and fail to mention the very real humanitarianism of Israel?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | 1 Comment

Wednesday briefs

Cold… cold… cold… burning up! What freeze? The AP is the only news outlet that claimed a “de facto freeze” on building in Jerusalem, and now the AP is effectively recanting that claim—but without issuing a correction or retraction. Funny, I couldn’t find that story a couple hours after it came out, either. Oops.

Smart power! Obama’s Syrian outreach is working really well. Turkey and Syria are now conducting annual joint military exercises. Oh, and Turkey has turned increasingly anti-Israel. Why, it’s almost as if they sense that Obama is turning his back on Israel. But no. The relationship is rock-solid.

The objective media: In this very long article about the new, less lethal ways Israeli soldiers are dealing with Palestinian “protesters,” the IDF can’t win for losing. Use the “skunk” instead of force? What kind of toxic chemicals is it made of? Use sponge bullets instead of rubber? They still hurt! Someone call the waaambulance. Oh, and the protests that “sometimes turn violent”? Make that “always.”

Racist, apartheid Israel teaches Senagalese about drip-irrigation: Israel, the inventor of drip-irrigation technology for growing food in arid land, is sharing that technology with African nations in the hopes of preventing any more famines. But you wouldn’t know about this unless you read the Israeli press and VOA. Wait, found an article from New Zealand. Because hey, you can’t go against the narrative.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, News Briefs | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Why we need bloggers

Take a paragraph from a recent New York Times news story:

The talks with the two leaders had been expected to begin last month but were delayed after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to build their capital. The Palestinians and President Obama were furious at the announcement, made during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the Americans made a number of demands of Israel aimed at restoring the negotiations

Pretty straightforward? Israel antagonized the United States and the Palestinians by planning to build new apartments in Jerusalem. This is the standard MSM narrative. It requires no critical thought. It is also highly misleading.

Bloggers, however, provide the full truth that the Times (and other MSM outlets) are too lazy to present.

As In Context pointed out, these apartments were hardly a new idea.

Elder of Ziyon points out that, the language used by the Obama administration was out of proportion to the announcement made by Jerusalem’s planning committee. So yes the administration was furious, but its response was disproportionate.

Finally, though he’s not, strictly speaking, a blogger, Barry Rubin writes:

But, by the way, might it be relevant that the PA has refused to talk for 15 months while Israel’s government has been ready to meet during this entire period?

So we wouldn’t know it from the MSM boilerplate but the efforts to get Israel and the Palestinians talking is the result of Palestinian intransigence.

In a sense the paragraph in the Times is correct. But by its omissions it is also misleading – it doesn’t let us know that the building announcement was a longstanding local matter, that the administration used excessively harsh language or that the reason there were no talks was because of a Palestinian refusal to talk with Israel.

And, of course, there are times when the Times just outright misrepresents the truth.

If there weren’t bloggers, these omissions and falsehoods would go unchallenged.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why we need bloggers

Fluffy puppy post

Via Omri, a very cute and funny post of dogs at the beach. I want to know how the hell they managed to train a Ridgeback to actually let objects go.

I used to have to fight Worf to get my things back. Like my sneaker.

Worf with my sneaker

And my shirt.

Worf with my denim shirt

I love Ridgies. I still miss Worf, even after all these years.

Posted in Humor | 2 Comments

Why peace processes fail

Recently, Meryl, Daled Amos and I have both written about the perverse incentives and results of the peace procdess.

Now Bret Stephens writes about how Peace Processes never work:

But he misses a deeper point. Even as peace processes almost invariably fail between the warring parties, they also almost invariably succeed as political theater for the peace processors themselves. Kim Dae Jung, Arafat and Shimon Peres all burnished their prestige with Nobel Peace Prizes. President Obama won one pre-emptively. And Mr. Clinton still basks in an ill-founded reputation as a peacemaker. Ironically, the only real peace he ever achieved, in the Balkans, was through the strength of American arms.

Think about the dynamic. After years of efforts the diplomats get the two parties together. Talking rather than fighting is determined to be the primary goal of the negotiations. (Or “peace” such as it is, is assigned an infinite value.)

Now say the bad guys violate some principle. There are three choices: insist that the bad guys desist, declare that the negotiations have failed or convince the good guys to overlook the breach. The first choice is too difficult. The second choice, because of the value given the process is unthinkable. The third choice is the path of least resistance.

But once you’ve ruled out the first two choices, what if the good guys say, “Enough, we won’t tolerate this?” Then you can bring pressure against the good guys, who are vulnerable to internal political pressure. If they refuse to overlook the violations, you say they are being unreasonable and are acting against the interests of peace. It doesn’t really matter. The peace process has become the end intself rather than the means to an end.

For a concrete example, think about 1996. In early 1996 Hamas unleashed a wave of suicide bombings against Israel that killed over 60 Israelis. Israelis, who, when they accepted the peace process, thought that Arafat had changed and would prevent terror, started retreating from support of the process and the Labour government that championed it. So what did President Clinton do? He organized as “summit of the peacemakers” and invited every Arab leader (including Hafez Assad, who refused to come despite Clinton’s pleas). Arafat, despite his failure to act against Hamas (and likely despite his tacit support of Hamas) was invited too. The purpose of this grotesque charade was to forestall the likely (and eventual) election of Binyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel. Clinton prized Arafat’s phony participation in the peace process above the democratic process in Israel. (Clinton should not have been surpised byt Arafat’s rejection of peace at Camp David in 2000; Clinton is the one who showed Arafat that there were no consequences to his perfidies.)

Note: I added to and changed this article slightly from what I first posted.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Tuesday Snark Briefs

Hey, Jim Jones can use this as his next joke line: So the underwear bomber fired at a Jewish star, a British flag, and the letters “UN.” Huh. That sort of undermines Obama’s “a Qaeda is fighting for a Palestinian state, too” narrative. Unless he thinks that al Qaeda also wants independence for Great Britain and a separate state for the UN in Manhattan. There’s a video at the link.

Satanic influences at the UN: I’m beginning to sense a theme here. We’re the Big Satan. Israel is the Little Satan. Now, Mad Mahmoud says that the ability to veto a UN Security Council resolution is a “satanic tool.” Meanwhile, the mass murder of civilians via terrorism is not considered satanic by the master of hypocrisy. I’m jusy sayin’.

And Barak kept a straight face the whole time: Barack Obama told the Israeli Defense Minister that the U.S. has an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security. Gee. I wonder if it has anything to do with the PR offensive the Obami are launching after the pushback from Jewish Democrats (one of their biggest sources of campaign donations). Unfortunately, I think they’re stupid enough to buy the charm offensive. Looks like Ehud Barak got the red carpet treatment.

Barak was in Washington at least twice in March, and met with Gates both times, but one doesn’t remember an honor guard. The White House also made a point today to say that Obama had dropped in on a meeting of Barak with National Security Advisor Jim Jones at the White House today. Presumably, the pulling out the best china now is as much about demonstrating to Congress and Washington players the high respect Obama administration officials are showing for Israeli leaders, and not because Barak has been feeling in any way neglected by the Obama administration.

Yep. Liberal Jews will fall for it. Watch.

Posted in Iran, Israel, News Briefs, Terrorism, The One | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Syria-sly bad behavior

The Washington Post gets it right:

BASHAR AL-ASSAD is proving to be an embarrassment for the Obama administration. In pursuit of President Obama’s policy of “engagement” with U.S. adversaries, the State Department has dispatched several senior envoys to Damascus for talks with the Syrian dictator. It has also nominated a new ambassador and repeatedly expressed the hope for a step-by-step improvement in relations. So far Mr. Assad has responded by holding a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, at which he publicly ridiculed the U.S diplomatic initiative. In secret, he has stepped up an illegal and dangerous transfer of weapons to Hezbollah’s forces in Lebanon.

Still I’m not sure about their criticism at the end:

So why persist with the “engagement” policy? “President Assad is . . . making decisions that could send the region into war,” was Mr. Feltman’s answer. “He’s listening to Ahmadinejad. He’s listening to Hassan Nasrallah. He needs to listen to us, too.”

That’s a reasonable argument; we don’t agree with Republicans who say the dispatch of Mr. Ford, a capable professional diplomat, would amount to a “reward” for Mr. Assad.

And nothing that the United States says will convince that he ought to listen to the United States. As the editorial goes on to explain, with or without an ambassador the administration has plenty of communication with Assad, so then returning an ambassador to Syria does amount to a reward for his bad behavior.

Barry Rubin after going through the “Dayenu’s” of Syrian enmity for the United States …

If Syria was not sponsoring the Iraqi insurgents to overthrow the government in Baghdad so as to replace a regime linked with the United States with one servile to itself, it should have been sufficient to show how instability in the region serves Syrian interests.

If Syria was not sponsoring Hizballah and others to seize control over Lebanon it should have been sufficient.

If Syria was not sponsoring Hamas to sabotage any peace process and seize control over the Palestinians it should have been sufficient.

If Syria did not oppose peace with Israel so as to destroy that country and replace it with a pro-Syrian Palestinian state it should have been sufficient.

If Syria did not back Iran in order to destabilize the Middle East to destroy relatively moderate Arab regimes that oppose Syrian leadership over all the Arabs it should have been sufficient.

If Syria did not do everything possible to destroy U.S. influence and interests in the region it should have been sufficient.

comes to the point:

To some extent, the State Department has been forced to acknowledge some of these problems in the face of congressional criticism about sending a U.S. ambassador back to Damascus. I’m not saying that the ambassador shouldn’t be sent back–though we should remember that Syria has done zero about the reason which led to the withdrawal in the first place, its complicity in the murder of Lebanon’s former prime minister–but if he’s returned it should be to wage diplomatic battle, not appeasement.

The United States withdrew its ambassador as a protest against the killing of Rafiq Hariri. Syria has failed to come clean about the murder. So by returning an ambassador to Damascus the administration signalled to Syria that it can make mischief with no fear of consequences.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Syria | Tagged , | 4 Comments