The NY Times: on the dark side of the conflict

September 12th, 2011
Obama sails between the Scylla of  US voters who support Israel and the Charybdis of his ‘friends’ in the Arab world.

Obama sails between the Scylla of US voters who support Israel and the Charybdis of his ‘friends’ in the Arab world.

The NY Times, in an editorial published on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, calls for the imposition of a Palestinian state because allowing a UN vote would be ‘ruinous’:

A United Nations vote on Palestinian membership would be ruinous. Yet with little time left before the U.N. General Assembly meets, the United States, Israel and Europe have shown insufficient urgency or boldness in trying to find a compromise solution.

Although it would provide a peg to hang violent disturbances on, maybe even a new intifada, and enable Palestinian ‘lawfare’ against Israel, a GA vote would not be ‘ruinous’ for Israel. The ruin would fall upon Barack Obama, whose decision to veto (or not) a subsequent Security Council resolution would put him between the Scylla of  US voters who support Israel and the Charybdis of his ‘friends’ in the Arab world.

So in order to save the President, the Times thinks that the US and Europe should hold Israel down while the Arabs rape her:

The United States and its Quartet partners (the European Union, the United Nations and Russia) should put a map and a deal on the table, with a timeline for concluding negotiations and a formal U.N. statehood vote. The core element: a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and guarantees for Israel’s security. The Security Council and the Arab League need to throw their full weight behind any plan.

Exactly what “mutually agreed” could mean here is unclear, since the Palestinians have said over and over “not one centimeter…” etc. The Palestinians rejected compromise offers in 2000 and 2008, so it’s hard to imagine that they would suddenly become more generous in the framework of a coerced settlement.

Regarding ‘guarantees’, can the Times possibly be serious? Did the guarantee Israel received from the US in 1956 that it would keep the Strait of Tiran open mean anything in 1967? What about the Multilateral Force in the Sinai that fled at Nasser’s request? Or the UN guarantee to prevent Hizballah from rearming after the 2006 war? If there is one thing that the Jewish people learned from the Holocaust, and from Israel’s wars that followed, it is that they must depend on themselves for their survival.

Since the Palestinians or the Arab league have never agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or to give up the demand to resettle Arab refugees in Israel, would such a coerced settlement force them to do so? How?

The Times tells us whose fault it is that direct negotiations haven’t succeeded:

Both sides share the blame with Mr. Obama and Arab leaders (we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts).

This is so far from the truth that it’s breathtaking. Obama encouraged the Palestinians to not return to negotiations after the Gaza war of 2008-9 by demanding a freeze on construction inside settlements, something that had never been a requirement before. Netanyahu agreed and there was a 10-month freeze with no results (except domestic political problems for him). Then the Palestinians demanded the freeze be extended for three months, and this time he did not agree.  So who’s doing the thwarting?

Since 1993, Israel has moved very far in the direction of compromise.  ‘Left-wing’ Itzhak Rabin was elected on a platform of opposition to a Palestinian state. Now ‘right-wing, hard-liner’ Netanyahu favors it. Israeli offers since 2000 have been more and more generous. But Palestinians still refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, still demand 1949 lines as borders and still demand right of return to Israel for Arab refugees. So naturally, the Times thinks that Israel should be pressured to move even farther:

Congress has threatened to cut millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority if it presses for a U.N. vote. Instead of just threatening the Palestinians, Congress should lean on Mr. Netanyahu to return to talks.

The theme of “whatever you do, don’t stop paying them” is continued:

Mr. Obama in particular needs to show firmer leadership in pressing Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas to resume talks. If a U.N. vote takes place, Washington and its partners will have to limit the damage, including continuing to finance the Palestinian Authority.

Simply put, pressure Netanyahu and try to bribe the Arabs (who will — as always — pocket the money and do what they want).

But I’ve saved  the best for last. Apparently the Times’ editorial writer fancies himself a diplomat, choosing to express himself with careful ambiguity. Stuck in incongruously as the next-to-last paragraph we find this:

It is astonishing that this late in the game, America and Europe remain divided over some aspects of a proposal for peace talks — like Israel’s demand for recognition as a Jewish state.

There is no hint about which side the Times thinks we should take! Is the demand for recognition just another example of Netanyahu’s ‘excuses’ to avoid negotiations? It’s not hard to guess. I would be astonished myself to find the Times pro-recognition. The rest of the editorial makes its position very clear.

Ten years after 9/11, the pressure to crush the last outpost of Western civilization in the Middle East is greater than ever, and the New York Times is firmly on the dark side of the conflict.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Explaining Arab rage

September 11th, 2011
Caricature of Avigdor Lieberman as a Nazi pig, displayed in an Egyptian demonstration

Caricature of Avigdor Lieberman as a Nazi pig, displayed in an Egyptian demonstration

To find something to illustrate this post, I googled ‘Egyptian antisemitic cartoons’. I got 152,000 images. I picked one that was colorful, though not as bloody as most of them (this one was done by a Belgian named Ben Heine, but was popular in Egyptian media and on posters).

If you were to ask an Egyptian why a slavering mob tore down a concrete wall and furiously hammered on an inner door (video here) just a few feet from six trapped Israeli security guards in order to try to tear them to pieces, they would likely say that they were furious over the death of several Egyptians during the recent terrorist attack near Eilat, and angry about Israel’s ‘treatment of Palestinians’.

Never mind that a) several of the terrorists were Egyptian citizens, b) seven Israeli Jews died in the attack which was launched from Egyptian soil, c) it’s quite likely that one of the Israeli casualties, police counterterrorism officer Pascal Avrahami, was murdered by Egyptian soldiers or police, and d) Israel apologized!

Oh, and never mind that the ‘treatment of Palestinians’ is a direct result of about 100 years of murder and terrorism directed at Jews and Israelis by Palestinian Arabs.

The guards were armed and probably would have killed dozens before being overwhelmed. Then Egypt would have demanded an apology.

Nothing affected me personally more than this story, here in the words of PM Netanyahu:

During this long night, we were required to make many difficult decisions.  I would like to share with you one conversation from this night.  On the line was Yonatan, the security officer of the Embassy.  He and his men, six in number, were trapped in the Embassy building.  The mob entered the building and entered the office.  Only one door separated between the mob and Yonatan and his friends.  He sounded perfectly calm to me, and on the other hand understood the situation in which he and his colleagues found themselves.

During the ongoing event, he requested from the security officer in the Foreign Ministry one thing:  If something happens to me, he said, my parents should be notified face to face, and not by telephone.   I got on the phone line and I said to him, “Yonatan, be strong.  I promise you that the State of Israel will do everything in its power and will use all possible resources in the world in order to rescue you and your friends unharmed and whole from this situation.”

And thank God this morning they all landed in Israel.  A short while ago I spoke with Yonatan and his mother.  They sounded wonderful.

There is more than one story of what happened to Jews who were not so lucky. There was the lynching of the two reserve soldiers who accidentally drove into Ramallah (video here), and countless attempted murders in which Jewish Israelis were stoned or stabbed (horrifying video here).

Why do Egyptians and Palestinian Arabs, despite ‘peace’ treaties, hate Jews so much? The answer is simple: they are fed a constant diet of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda, by their leadership and by all Arab media. Here’s the way ‘peace’ is implemented:

  1. An Arab entity like the Egyptian government or the PLO makes a ‘peace’ agreement with Israel. Israel makes concrete concessions, like returning the Sinai to Egypt, or allowing the PLO to return from exile and set up a government. The ‘international community’ makes massive aid payments to the Arabs. The Arabs commit (in English) to peace with Israel, and explicitly agree to stop hateful incitement.
  2. The Arabs, officially and unofficially, ramp up incitement. Palestinian media glorifies terrorists and broadcasts the most horrible slanders against Jews and Israel. Egypt produces a TV series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and an Arabic version of Mein Kampf is a best-seller.
  3. When the Arab masses inevitably explode in violence, the leadership blames ‘Israel’s treatment of Palestinians’, etc.

There are cultural factors that make this possible. The idea that a Jew could kill or humiliate an Arab under any circumstances is guaranteed to drive them wild. Arab politicians understand this, and it is always useful to divert unhappiness about the lack of food or jobs into anti-Israeli channels.

Israel and the West have made an error by ignoring the incitement, treating it as peripheral and unimportant. It is actually essential — if the Israel/Egypt peace treaty is abrogated, it will be a direct result of the incitement.

Update [12/3/2011 2301 PST]: added the information about the cartoonist, plus the fact that Israel apologized.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

 

The threat of Islamophobia-ophobia

September 9th, 2011

Our local Islamic Center is holding a 9/11 memorial program tomorrow. They’ve invited a woman whose sister-in-law was murdered on 9/11, who will speak about it from an anti-war point of view. They are certainly entitled to do this.

I’m sure she will bring up the subject of dislike and prejudice against American Muslims. She will suggest that there is a massive amount of it since 9/11, but she will actually be wrong. Here is a table of hate crime statistics from the FBI for 2009:

Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
3.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
2.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.7 percent were victims because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
8.3 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
4.3 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).

There are perhaps three times as many Jews as Muslims in the US. But a Jew is almost nine times as likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim (nevertheless the example of a hate crime victim on the FBI site is a Muslim). Keep in mind that the large Muslim organizations like CAIR have been aggressively encouraging Muslims to report ‘Islamophobic’ incidents as hate crimes.

Think about what happened to innocent Jews in Arab countries when those countries lost a war that they started against the new state of Israel. Talk about hate crimes! Comparatively, the US has done remarkably well in its treatment of American Muslims since 9/11.

‘Islamophobia’ is used quite loosely not only to mean prejudice against Muslims, but any criticism of Islam. For example, I recall a meeting with several Muslims when the name of Daniel Pipes came up. “Oh, he’s Islamophobic,” the Muslims agreed.

Pipes actually is neither prejudiced against Muslims nor anti-Islam: his position is that the religious texts can be — and are, by some — interpreted in an aggressive, expansionist or violent way, and that there is presently a struggle in the community of Muslims between traditional Muslims and the radicals. But because this implies that Islam is not perfect in all respects, he is considered ‘Islamophobic’.

In the UN, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has been working with some success to criminalize ‘defamation of religion’, an effort which some see as legitimizing anti-blasphemy laws in Islamic countries. Lately, the effort appears to be receiving some support from the Obama Administration. Of course, the Western position until now has always been that individuals have rights which must be protected, not religions:

The administration is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.

Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Liberal Jewish leaders in the US also seem to be worried about the threat of Islamophobia:

“Ten years after 9/11, it has somehow become respectable to verbally attack Muslims and Islam in America,” Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, said Thursday at the Washington event organized by Shoulder to Shoulder, a group founded a year ago during a period of intensified anti-Muslim rhetoric.

“There are very real consequences when entire populations are represented in the public imagination by their worst elements, when the sins of the few are applied to the group as a whole. I have watched in astonishment as prominent politicians, including candidates for president of the United States, have found it politically opportune to peddle divisive anti-Muslim bigotry.” — JTA

I am not sure which candidate(s) Rabbi Yoffie is talking about, or what “bigotry” they are peddling. But I think we are moving dangerously close to stifling free speech when we create a psychological no-go zone around critical discussion of Islam. After all, the 9/11 attacks were committed against us by Muslims in the name of Islam. As I wrote yesterday, it isn’t enough to just blame “al-Qaeda.”

The word ‘Islamophobia’ is a bad choice to describe anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudice, because etymologically it should mean “fear of Islam” (a better word would be ‘misislamy’ or something similar, but it’s almost unpronounceable). It seems, though, that while Muslims are strongly opposed to criticism of Islam, the radical ones at least are quite happy to promote fear of Muslims. There is a reason that random attacks against civilians, like 9/11 or Hamas’ missile attacks on Israel, are called ‘terrorism’. They are intended to demoralize a population by creating fear.

Fear of terrorism is a very real thing. But especially in the culture of the West in the last 50 years or so, fear of being called a ‘bigot’ is also real. And just as we need to defend our people and civilization, we need to defend our ability to speak freely and openly about forces that threaten them.

Technorati Tags:

What I learned on 9/11

September 8th, 2011
TV transmission antenna on the North Tower of the World Trade Center

TV transmission antenna on the North Tower of the World Trade Center

As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 draws near, much is being said about it — ‘where was I when’ stories, political lessons to be learned, stories of great personal loss (the husband, daughter, son that never came back), and more. It’s impossible to escape in local and national newspapers, the radio and TV, the internet.

“Everything changed,” many say. But what changed isn’t the same for every one of us.

What stands out the most for me is this: 9/11 thrust itself in the most concrete way possible — interposed astonishing cruelty, massive destruction and widespread pain — between the politically correct discourse that had come to characterize our national conversation, and the reality that exists beyond it.

It’s as if Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mohammed Atta, et al, struck a powerful blow which propelled us into their world, a world in which honor and shame are the primary determinants of behavior, in which you get points for gratuitous cruelty (except it isn’t gratuitous), and in which ideology is far more important than economic benefits. In this world, the ‘other’ is often your enemy, and what you do to enemies is kill them.

It’s an uncivilized world, and many of us still don’t know how it works or how to survive in it.

We started fighting a ‘war on terror’, not always against the correct targets, and even today our government is capable of saying only that they are fighting ‘al-Qaeda’ — a relatively small piece of the coalition of radical Islamists that has declared war on us. Even when it was obvious that they were trying to kill us because we were their enemies, government officials insisted that “terrorism is caused by poverty” and similar ridiculous explanations (even your average teen-age gang member understands killing enemies).

We have finally — after 10 years — figured out how to kill members of al-Qaeda, starting with bin Laden, and that organization is staggering today. But apparently our administration still doesn’t see that the coalition of convenience of radical Islamic powers — which includes Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and (more and more) Turkey — is lined up against us, despite their considerable differences.

It’s the ideology, stupid

The cooperation of Shiite Hizballah and Sunni Hamas to threaten Israel should be instructive to us. Until we understand, for example, that Turkey can be preparing to invade Syria and challenging Iran for domination of the region, while still cooperating with those powers to push out US influence, we will continue to miss the point that we are fighting an ideology, not terrorist militias.

The danger of home-grown terrorism is not reduced when we insist that those who practice jihad without explicit connections to al-Qaeda are mentally disturbed or otherwise irrelevant. The facts that there are mosques in the US where radical Islamic views are preached, that some of the largest and most influential Muslim organizations espouse Islamist ideologies, and that many Muslims feel that piety is proportional to radicalism — these are things that we can’t afford to ignore.

Muslim organizations would like us to think that the biggest problem resulting from 9/11 is a ‘wave of Islamophobia’, a backlash against innocent Muslims. Actually, although prejudice against Muslims does exist, it is almost negligible — far less prevalent than antisemitism. But if every expression of concern about radical Islamism, every suspicion that some organization or mosque is imbued with Islamist ideology is forbidden on the grounds that it constitutes an unacceptable form of prejudice — then we will be defenseless against this ideology, which, frankly, wants to kill us.

This should be the main lesson of 9/11: enmity based on ideology is not obsolete. We are at war with an ideology, one closely bound up with religion in the most dangerous way possible. We need to name the enemy, fight it abroad and suppress it at home.

I have to agree with the bumper sticker:

Everything I need to know about radical Islamism I learned on 9/11.

Technorati Tags: ,

Turkey’s NATO membership was a mistake

September 7th, 2011
Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄŸan. Can he climb down?

Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄŸan. Can he climb down?

Israel’s enemies often characterize her as warlike, or a ‘bully’. In fact, Israel’s diplomacy is often excessively conciliatory — especially in the Middle East, where attempts at compromise and conciliation are often seen as weakness or surrender, and where the goal of Israel’s enemies is not to solve problems but to create them.

However, the award for the most childish display of belligerence in the region has to go to Turkey. After the publication of the Palmer Report, in which the UN (for once) had the audacity to admit that Israel was actually justified in blockading Gaza and boarding the Mavi Marmara, Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador, ended military and trade cooperation and announced that it would support Palestinian statehood in the UN.

All very nice, but the icing on the cake was Turkey’s threat to escort future flotillas to Gaza:

“The eastern Mediterranean Sea is not a region unfamiliar to us,” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Tuesday in his first public comments on measures that Turkey was taking over Israel’s failure to apologize for killing nine Turks on a Gaza-bound aid ship last year.

Turkish forces stationed at naval bases in Aksaz and Ä°skenderun are capable of patrolling regional waters and escorting civilian ships in the Mediterranean, ErdoÄŸan told reporters.

“Certainly, our ships will show up more frequently in these waters. We will see them [there] very frequently,” he said. “So far, Israel has always played the role of a spoiled boy in the face of U.N. resolutions concerning Israel, thinking that it would carry on with this role.”

On Friday Ankara last said it would take action to ensure the safety of maritime navigation in the East Mediterranean as part of measures against Israel that included also the downgrading of diplomatic ties to the second-secretary level. — Hürriet Daily News (Turkey)

Emanuele Ottolenghi has pointed out that ErdoÄŸan ought to read some of the details of the legal case found in the report (which he demanded that the UN produce in the first place):

Because the Palmer Report has recognized an on-going state of war exists between Israel and Hamas; that Israel has a right to self-defense in this context; that the blockade is a legitimate instrument to meet Israel’s security requirements; and that therefore Israel’s blockade is legal; any attempt by Turkish ships to breach the blockade would be an act of aggression. Israel, provided it follows the rules of engagement (prior warning, ascertainment of the vessels’ intentions, non-violent means, proportionality etc.) laid out in the Palmer Report, is entitled to board, capture or otherwise use force to prevent Turkish ships from getting to Gaza.

This is more than childish — it’s extremely dangerous. Does Turkey really want war with Israel?

One of the requirements for a blockade in international law is that it be ‘effective’. You can’t make exceptions and still have a legal blockade. Israel simply can’t afford to have ships carrying tons of arms and ‘volunteers’ or who knows what landing in Gaza. So Israel will enforce the blockade, even if it means using force against a Turkish warship.

Turkey is a member of NATO. Article One of the NATO charter reads as follows:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Turkey’s warlike threats  obviously contradict the NATO charter. Since the Islamist AKP’s ascendance to power in 2002, ErdoÄŸan has pushed Turkey away from the West and closer to those dark forces which NATO, from its activation in 2001 as a result of the 9/11 attack on the US, has fought against.

Turkey opposed sanctions on Iran, courted Hamas (which ErdoÄŸan does not consider a terrorist group), and is presently trying to ensure that the replacement for Assad’s terror-supporting regime in Syria will be a Sunni Islamist terror-supporting regime that he controls.

It’s clear that Turkey’s NATO membership and the amount of military hardware it has received as a result was a mistake.

Technorati Tags: , ,