Archive for February, 2011

Quote of the week: Caroline Glick

Saturday, February 5th, 2011

Caroline Glick:

Israelis are indifferent because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.

A Pew Research Center opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. Ninety-five percent of Egyptians, 97% of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98% of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Three quarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews…

That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power.

What these numbers, and the anti-Semitic behavior of Arabs, show Israelis is that it makes no difference which regime rules where. As long as the Arab peoples hate Jews, there will be no peace between their countries and Israel. No one will be better for Israel than Mubarak. They can only be the same or worse…

One of the more troubling aspects of the Western media coverage of the tumult in Egypt over the past two weeks has been the media’s move to airbrush out all evidence of the protesters’ anti- Semitism…

Given the Western media’s obsessive coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict, at first blush it seems odd that they would ignore the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the presumably pro-democracy protesters. But on second thought, it isn’t that surprising.

If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel. That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored.

The problem is not that the media are antisemitic. Most aren’t. As Glick points out, there is an accepted narrative which argues that the reason for the conflict is that Israel hasn’t allowed the Palestinian Arabs to realize their national aspirations. This could be solved, therefore, by pressuring Israel to give them what they want. But if the cause is simply Arab racism, then it’s the Arabs that have to change. And that is not what the NY Times and the Obama Administration want to hear.

But there is more to it than this. Arab antisemitism is so blatant, so obvious, so much part of what makes them who they are, that it is hard to understand how any but the most cynically dishonest journalist could miss it. And yet they do.

It’s remarkable that the slightest whiff of racism in any other context often becomes a cause célèbre. There were Shirley Sherrod’s remarks that  got her fired from the Department of Agriculture, Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond that led to his resignation as Senate Minority leader, the police officer’s treatment of Henry Louis Gates that brought about the absurd ‘beer summit’ with President Obama, and the use of the word ‘Macaca’  (which doubtless very few Virginians had ever heard before) that caused Virgina Senator George Allen to lose his bid for re-election.

It seems to be a hair trigger reaction in most cases — except for Arab antisemitism. Here it’s entirely unexceptional. Because they are Arabs, it’s expected and accepted. Even in Europe, where a person can be jailed for denying the Holocaust, it’s business as usual when an Arab calls for another one.

Even many Israelis are desensitized. “What do you expect?” they say. Everyone, media, politicians, ordinary people, have gotten used to it.

But Arab racism is no more acceptable than western racism. Blood libels, demonization, vilification, Hitlerian imagery, scapegoating and all the rest are not acceptable, regardless of the source. No automatic exemption from the values of the civilized world should be given just because the racists happen to be Arabs or Muslims.

The Israeli leadership must understand this as well. How is it possible to negotiate with such as Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, Mahmoud Abbas, et al? Shouldn’t it be a requirement that the Palestinian authority agree that there is a Jewish people and it is not descended from monkeys and pigs before Israel agrees to talk about giving up part of the Jewish homeland to them?

It’s enough. We, the Jewish people, do not need to take this abuse. And the media, which are so ready to accuse and condemn westerners for racist speech, have a responsibility to call out Arabs and Muslims when they hear it from them.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Soros: it’s all Israel’s fault

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

The situation in Egypt has Israel worried, for good reason. The border has been peaceful since the 1970’s, thanks to the ‘cold peace’. It’s not ideal — believe it or not, Israel honestly yearns for true friendly relations with its Arab neighbors — but it’s better than war. And now nobody knows what kind of regime will come after Mubarak.

If a true liberal democracy were to arise, the peace would most likely continue to be ‘cold’. There’s no love for Israel among even the most liberal Egyptians, but a regime interested in economic development and freedom would not opt for war. On the other hand, a radical Islamist regime might — or might not — abrogate the Camp David treaty. Either way, Israel would have to make plans and allocate resources to deal with the possibility of hostility or even an outright attack on its southern border.

Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas. The worst-case scenario is that of Egypt becoming one big Gaza strip, except with a massive army and modern weapons.

Today Israel has concentrated its forces to respond to the very serious threat from Hizballah in the north, and the less-serious threat from Hamas in Gaza. But that will have to change. It will be expensive and difficult.

Israel has little or no influence on what will happen in Egypt (unlike the US, which has the lever of military aid). And it isn’t clear at all what the US should do, or even what it is doing. I’ve heard anti-Mubarak protesters excoriating the US for supporting Mubarak, while pro-Mubark people curse us for abandoning him.

Unsurprisingly, anti-Israel forces are trying to blame Israel for everything, including Mubarak’s brutality. Some suggest that whatever the US is doing wrong — there are different versions of this — it is doing it because the ‘Israel lobby’ is causing it to do so.

Let’s look at what one of  Israel’s most vicious and dangerous enemies in the West, the billionaire currency speculator George Soros, says:

President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America’s leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States – Syria and Iran – than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.

The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. — Washington Post

Almost every proposition in the above is false. El Baradei, who received his Nobel in 2005 for his supposed efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes, consistently said that there was no evidence that Iran was working on nuclear weapons (while technically true — there was no evidence of an actual weapon under development — clearly the Iranian program has always been intended to produce weapons).

El Baradei has no real support in Egyptian politics, but is a useful figurehead for Western consumption, to sanitize the radical Brotherhood. To support El Baradei because he is smooth, speaks good English and (like Yasser Arafat!) was given a Nobel Prize would be to fall directly into the Brotherhood’s trap.

Soros adds that an Egyptian regime with participation (which would shortly become domination) by the Brotherhood would ‘endanger…Syria and Iran’. Really? How did radical Islamist participation work out in Lebanon? Quite the opposite!

Of course, it doesn’t take him long to blame Israel. In fact, Israel’s unhappiness with the situation is not because it doesn’t “recognize its own best interests” but because it recognizes too well what is likely to happen if the pro-democratic forces are co-opted in favor of the radical Islamists, as happened in Iran in 1979 and Lebanon just recently. Indeed the history of revolutions in general, starting with the emblematic French and Russian ones, doesn’t hold out much hope for a good outcome (the American ‘revolution’ was more of a secession than a revolution).

But, says Soros, all is not lost because the Religious Right and the nefarious Israel Lobby are no longer controlling American policy. No, now we have the phony ‘pro-Israel’ J Street (a creature of Soros) speaking truth to power! In fact, J Street represents only an extreme left wing minority of American Jews, and it is rapidly losing the support of formerly naive liberals who were initially fooled into believing that it was indeed ‘pro-Israel’.

It seems to me that there are four possible outcomes in Egypt. Here they are, with the best first:

  • A true democratic regime arises (probability: 0.001%).
  • The existing regime continues, although without Mubarak (possible).
  • A caretaker regime including the Muslim Brotherhood, takes over. Within a year or two, the Brotherhood cements its control (probable).
  • An Islamist regime arises immediately (less probable).

The best policy for the US will be to walk the tightrope of supporting true pro-democracy forces while making clear that any regime that includes the Muslim Brotherhood is unacceptable. Although we may not be able to prevent this outcome, we shouldn’t act to hasten it.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Isolation is the new situation

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Usually I keep my articles about ‘the situation’ — the various threats against Israel — pragmatic and short-term. Because, after all, who knows what will happen in the long term.

But the turmoil in Egypt — which has just turned ugly — and the rest of the Arab world prompts me to ask some long term questions.

While we can’t predict who will come out on top in Egypt with certainty, the inexorable flow of time means that it won’t be the 82-year old Mubarak, even if he survives this crisis. In the short term, Mubarak did Israel a favor in practical terms by keeping a lid on Islamist forces, opposing Hamas and Hizballah. But from a longer perspective, perhaps the deliberate way he stoked the fires of anti-Zionist and antisemitic hatred in Egypt, the way he ensured that ‘peace’ between Egypt and Israel would never be more than an extended cease-fire, simply postponed the conflict that he could have ended.

A shame, because it was in his power to take a different path. He didn’t have to take the approach, so common in the Middle East, of using Israel as an excuse for everything — a police state, military buildups, etc. He had absolute power, and he was starting from a situation in which Sadat had ‘recovered Egypt’s honor’ in 1973. But instead, Egypt became the source of the worst antisemitic incitement in the Middle East.

The Palestinian Arabs are another sad story. Unfortunately, the ideological dynasty that supplied their leadership, from the Nazi Mufti al-Husseini through Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, and to the heir apparent, Marwan Barghouti, has always been singlemindedly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Barghouti, by the way, who is presently in prison for masterminding at least five murders, is often said to be the one man who could bring Fatah and Hamas together. Here’s is what he said last week:

I address special greetings to the great Palestinian nation, initiator of revolutions and Intifadas, with a legendary history of resolve facing the worst and most abominable enemy known to humanity and modern history; the enemy which does not refrain from carrying out massacres, continuing aggression, theft of land, establishment of settlements and expanding them, and to Judaize Jerusalem – the city of cities and the jewel in the crown of the [Arab] nation – and continues with a policy of detention against the members of a defenseless people. — PMW

The Palestinian authority government of Mahmoud Abbas, which also seemed to follow an ‘incite but don’t fight’ policy like Mubarak’s, has been seriously weakened by the so-called “Palestine Papers,” which are being exploited by Hamas. Today it is propped up only by US money and the IDF. It would not surprise me to see the US dumping Abbas as it dumped Mubarak, and putting pressure on Israel to release Barghouti to become the new Palestinian strongman.

The fact is that the Arab world, all of it, has been fed anti-Zionism and antisemitism for several generations now, and it shows. Today in the age of the Iranian-influenced Aljazeera, the voice of hatred is global in its reach.

Indeed, let’s look at the rest of the globe. The non-Arab Muslim nations are all hostile to Israel, because Muslims have been convinced that Israel and Zionism are enemies of Islam itself, not just Palestinian Arabs. Although it doesn’t make sense, this argument has been persuasive, probably because nobody dares to criticize the violent Islamists that make it.

Sometimes there are pragmatic benefits from hatred. In Turkey for example the AK party has orchestrated conflict with Israel to mobilize its base to support it in coming elections.

What about the West? Here things get interesting. Probably since the time of the Roman Empire, antisemitism has been manifest. Jews were taken as scapegoats in Europe throughout the Middle Ages and after. After the Enlightenment, Jews took various paths — to assimilation, Zionism and migration, but then Hitler showed that escape from the problems of Jewishness wasn’t as easy as some thought.

The reaction to the Holocaust was a huge setback for antisemitism. Sane politicians and intellectuals agreed that antisemitism, indeed all kinds of racism, were evil and must never be allowed to proliferate again. In the US, this coincided with the civil rights movement, where institutionalized racism was practically eliminated, and racist ways of thinking — including antisemitism — were stigmatized as unacceptable.

But like a mutating virus, antisemitism changed in a way which made it immune to the societal defenses against racism. It turned into collective hatred of the Jewish state, rather than being directed at individual Jews. So it became possible to say “I’m not antisemitic, I’m critical of Israel. It’s just politics, not racism.” While analysis of this position often exposes the double standards and demonization that indicate that it is not ‘just politics’, this response hasn’t gotten much traction outside the pro-Israel community.

Worse, Israel-haters have taken advantage of the very taboos that should protect Jews and turned them against Israel. So they accuse Israel of violating the human rights of Palestinian Arabs, being racist and creating an apartheid state.

These false accusations, repeated over and over by left-wing academics, politicians, and media personalities — some, especially the academics, bribed with Arab oil money — are much more effective than traditional antisemitic language at creating hatred. In some countries, like the UK, almost no other voices are heard in the media. In the US it’s less prevalent, but can be found consistently in places like NPR and the NY Times.

I believe that this anti-Israel propaganda actually gains force by awakening echoes of antisemitism in listeners who perhaps would not allow themselves to consciously entertain antisemitic notions. But disliking Israel, unjustifiably but viscerally, feels great.

So what is the consequence of this world-wide epidemic of anti-Israel feeling?

If there’s one word that characterizes Israel today, it’s isolation. Physically, there are Hizballah and Syria to the north, Hamas to the southwest, perhaps an Islamist or at least Islamist-influenced Egypt in the south and the weakened PA to the east. This degree of isolation characterized the Jewish state in its early years, but I think is seen as a new phenomenon because it’s changed so much for the worse since the 1990’s.

Politically, support for Israel is weak to nonexistent in Europe. While there is popular and Congressional support in the US, the administration is borderline hostile. Some of this is due to practical politics — i.e., Arab economic power — but a lot comes from mutated antisemitism (the prevalence of academics in our administration is an indicator).

I think that we are entering a very difficult period. Israel’s main ally, the US, is weak as a result of two wars and economic difficulties, and it is governed by an incompetent and ideologically suspect administration. The most powerful nation in the Arab world is teetering between its traditional conservative leaders and Islamism (democracy is not a real possibility). And the revolutionary Islamism of Iran has taken over Lebanon and is only growing in strength.

What should the response be?

From a military point of view “ain hochmot“. There aren’t any clever tricks, just adequate planning and allocation of resources. Probably Israel will have to allocate more of its GDP to preparedness, both for the armed forces and the neglected home front.

I think that Israel stopped underestimating the military capabilities of its enemies after 2006. The real problem will be in the information war, the need to keep fighting until a decisive victory is achieved, despite pressure from a propaganda-affected US and Europe. Clearly, the precautions taken to avoid civilian casualties in Cast Lead, while elaborate, did not prevent the defamation of the IDF.

With respect to fighting delegitimization, here is my admittedly amateur prescription: Israel should attack the double standards, etc. of the haters. It should not be defensive or show weakness. The principle is this: the phenomenon of Israel-bashing by the West is a form of bullying. Bullies are encouraged by a show of weakness and deterred by strength and resolve.

It’s a new reality for Israel, a much more difficult one.

Technorati Tags:

J Street lays a trap for Birthright

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

J Street’s recent attempt to slime Taglit-Birthright shows yet again that J Street is nothing more than a Trojan Horse intended to sabotage American Jewish support for Israel.

Birthright is an organization that provides free trips to Israel for young people from 18-27 years old, on the premise that nothing creates understanding and connection better than personal experience.

It’s been wildly successful, perhaps showing that the much-remarked lack of connection to Israel among young American Jews is due more to the suffusion of colleges and universities by anti-Israel propaganda than to Israel’s illiberal tendencies, as Peter Beinart has alleged.

J Street’s campus arm, J Street U, announced that they would be leading a Birthright tour with a difference. It would be called “Explore Israel: Progressive Zionism and Social Justice.” It would be “from a perspective that acknowledges your Jewish and progressive values,” and would help participants discover “the full contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” by meeting with “members of Israeli civil society working to advance the goals of democracy and human rights.”

In other words, J Street U would use the resources of Birthright to indoctrinate students with their brand of anti-Israel politics. And it’s not just theoretical — J Street U has organized Jewish students to join left-wing protests in Israel.

The announcement prompted inquiries to Birthright, which responded that no such tour had been approved. But J Street U pressed the matter, claiming that Birthright had ‘canceled’ their planned tour. And then J Street’s director, the serial liar Jeremy Ben Ami weighed in to suggest that the tour was killed for political reasons.

But Birthright never received a formal proposal and the trip was never approved at all:

Taglit-Birthright Israel wishes to clarify that at no time did it approve of a Birthright Israel trip in association with JStreet, nor did it give its trip provider, the Israel Experience, any approval for such a trip. We did not rescind its approval as no approval was given in the first place.

Three months ago, we were approached by the Israel Experience which informally inquired about holding a trip focusing on Progressive Zionism and social justice in conjunction with JStreet. We said such a trip, as described in a brief conversation with the Israel Experience, would likely be out of keeping with our longstanding policy of not conducting trips with a political orientation.

The Israel Experience made no follow-up, and it did not submit any formal request for such a trip. At no time did Taglit-Birthright Israel have any contact with JStreet or JStreetU.

Last week, we were perplexed to read a press release by JStreetU announcing it was “leading” a Birthright Israel trip, and soliciting participants to register for the trip on its website bearing a Taglit-Birthright Israel logo. Aside from the fact that no such trip was ever approved, there cannot have been any registered participants, since registration in North America begins on February 15th and takes place only through our website.

Ben Ami mentioned that Birthright trips had been led by other organizations that are ‘political’, such as AIPAC. But the difference is that AIPAC submitted a proposal beforehand, as Birthright explains:

For years, we have run a Capital-to-Capital trip through another trip provider, which focuses on the Israeli political system. The provider has been running this trip, with input from AIPAC, a mainstream Israel advocacy group, long before JStreet was established. It focuses on Israel’s political structure, with an approach similar to a political science class; the trip has never been tilted to one side of the political spectrum. Needless to say, the trip organizer submitted a formal trip proposal which underwent rigorous review before it was approved.

Ben Ami lays a trap for Birthright, suggesting that if it approves one ‘political’ group it must approve any such group. But by this principle, even Hamas could lead a trip! Of course there have to be limits, and AIPAC — whose point of view parallels that of the Government of Israel — is mainstream while J Street is not. In any event, since no proposal was submitted, Birthright didn’t have to decide.

The project, in my opinion, was intended to embarrass Birthright. If it agreed to a J Street-led tour it would anger its Zionist supporters as well as contribute to J Street’s efforts on behalf of the campaign to delegitimize Israel. On the other hand, refusing to approve it leaves Birthright open to the charge that it is a political organization — perhaps even imperiling its 501(c)(3) status (far-fetched? See here, here and here).

Birthright is one of the most effective tools we have to counteract the massive propaganda blitz that our young people are exposed to on campus and from their ‘progressive’ friends. Support and protect it.

Technorati Tags: ,