Morsi and NY Times mislead Americans

The New York Times published an interview with Egyptian President and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi today.

Morsi makes some interesting statements, like this:

If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment … When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt.

I suppose this means that if they want to murder Christians we oughtn’t to judge them, while they reserve the right to attack our embassy whenever someone in the US makes a video that insults them. Unfair? What else could it mean?

He said several times that the US favors Israel over the Palestinians, and that this is a problem in relations between Egypt and the US. I would say two things in response: first, Egypt has never been a friend to Palestinian nationalism, except insofar as it could be used as a weapon against Israel. In 1948, Egypt established a harsh military occupation of the Gaza strip. Arab refugees were forced into refugee camps at gunpoint — by Egyptian soldiers.

Historian Efraim Karsh tells us,

[In 1948] the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.

In economic and humanitarian terms, the ‘plight’ of the Palestinians was far worse under Arab occupation before 1967 than after Israel took control of the territories. Karsh writes,

Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians’ standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars.

This is not to say that the Palestinians are happy being ruled by Jews, which of course is devastating for their sense of honor and Muslim sensibilities. But it does make one wonder how much Egyptians have historically cared for their Palestinian Arab ‘brothers’.

Second, it is simply untrue that the US has favored Israel over the Palestinians, unless you understand this to mean that the US has not (yet) supported maximalist Arab demands for the replacement of Israel by an Arab state. The US has certainly pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, and it is only the Palestinian desire to ‘have it all’ that has prevented a US-brokered Palestinian state from coming into being.

And here is something else that is untrue:

… he also argued that Americans “have a special responsibility” for the Palestinians because the United States had signed the 1978 Camp David accord. The agreement called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza to make way for full Palestinian self-rule.

“As long as peace and justice are not fulfilled for the Palestinians, then the treaty remains unfulfilled,” he said. [my emphasis]

The sentence in bold is not presented as a quotation from Morsi. It is a simple statement of ‘fact’ by the Times’ writers, David D. Kirkpatrick and Steven Erlanger. Regardless of who said it, it is quite false. The Camp David agreement called for Israel to end its military government and withdraw troops from areas of the territories where a self-governing authority is elected by the Palestinians. These conditions have been more than met with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Elder of Ziyon comments on the text of the agreement thus:

Camp David does not say that there will necessarily be a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza. It most certainly says nothing about a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories, only that its final status (and, by implication, its borders) will be up for negotiation after a transition period. And it explicitly says that there will be a redeployment of Israeli security forces – in order to ensure security for Israel – into locations that can only mean in parts of the territories, or else it would have just said “withdrawal of remaining Israeli forces,” period.

Indeed, the agreement also talks about joint Jordanian-Israeli patrols in Judea/Samaria!

By demanding “Peace and justice … for the Palestinians” as part of Camp David — and we know well how this is interpreted in the Arab world — Morsi can justify Egypt’s abrogating any part of the treaty that it chooses (although I doubt he will be returning the Sinai to Israel any time soon). This is important, because it will soon become a live issue as the Egyptians ‘reconsider’ the treaty.

The Times’ presentation is either incompetent (they don’t know what’s in the Camp David agreement) or dishonest.

What else is new?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Share:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • NewsVine

3 Responses to “Morsi and NY Times mislead Americans”

  1. Robman says:

    The answer to the multiple choice question above is obviously choice “b”.

    Of course they are dishonest. If they were simply incompetent, by the law of averages, they would from time to time produce “incompetent” journalism that winds up favoring Israel. It is interesting that their “incompetence” always winds up being in a particular direction, every time, without fail.

    This reflects both the obvious justice of our own cause, and the incredible level of corruption in our media today.

    No matter what spin they tried to put on it, if they simply stuck to the facts, Israel would likely come out ahead in the court of public opinion, or at least in a lot better shape than she’s in. What we see here – what we see so often – is that the other side and their lackeys cannot win the argument based on fact. They have to literally make things up, frequently, in order to make Israel look bad.

    It isn’t enough that they dominate discourse at our universities. It isn’t enough that the overwhelming majority of the time, every opportunity is taken to make Israel look as bad as possible through selective use of what facts there are, plus raw sensationalism aimed at public emotions. They have even corrupted our most heretofore respected journalistic institutions to the point where they routinely tell outright lies in order to support the Palestinian narrative and portray Israel as the villain.

    If it comes to war – and sooner or later this seems inevitable – I hope that Israeli leaders do not hold back at all, one iota. Ironically, Obama has pushed Israel into a corner such that he has practically invited her to take this approach, leaving her with little left to lose by doing so. She must fight like she did in ’67, going all out…but with the much greater power she has today compared with then.

    As she will get no help from anyone, she has to strike as fast and as hard with the full range of her capabilities, with the maximum level of violence up front, so as to decisively throttle her enemies before whatever sanctions she may be subjected to by the world community have a chance to bite during the fighting. Increasingly this appears to be the only option remaining.

  2. nanhum says:

    well said, Vic. Morsy and the NYT in propagandist collusion.

  3. Shalom Freedman says:

    Why is the ‘Times’ incapable of knowing the facts presented in this article? The answer of course is also given in the article. They really don’t want to.
    I would like to add I very much enjoyed reading this devastating taking- apart of the mendacious interview given by Morsi.