Swinging the pendulum in our direction

August 23rd, 2007

Recently I was looking at reports of outrageously unfair media treatment of Israel, such as HonestReporting on the UK Independent’s Mark Steel, or Camera on Christiane Amanpour’s CNN documentary. And another blow will almost certainly fall soon, with the upcoming release of “Jimmy Carter Man From Plains“, a documentary about Carter’s recent book tour.

HR, Camera, and others do a good job of exposing the bias and, often, the outright lies. But the damage is done, and the people who read Mark Steel, for example, are not likely to check HR’s website.

There is a veritable industry producing anti-Israel material, films, TV programs, articles, books, websites, etc. It’s impossible to counteract this only by responding to them. It’s necessary to tell the true story pro-actively, and it must be done in the most effective — that is, emotionally powerful — way.

Probably the best way to do this is by the visual media, film and TV. Nothing else has the emotional impact or the reach.

Israel has a well-developed film industry, but most of its products are aimed at the domestic market, and many of them present a dark vision of Israel or have a definite left-wing slant.

I am not suggesting that Israeli studios should start cranking out propaganda films. What I would like to see are films aimed at the foreign market which will simply tell the truth, from an Israeli — OK, a Zionist — point of view.

I would like to see feature films, documentaries, TV programs, etc. The media are hungry for content, why can’t we give them some?

What needs to happen is that the conventional wisdom — the everyday assumptions about the Israeli-Arab conflict that most people make when they read or hear about events — needs to change. The tendentious nonsense written by Mark Steel about how Israel does not recognize the Palestinians’ right to exist came from somewhere, and I don’t think Hamas paid him to write it.

Steel won’t read my blog, and if he did he’d dismiss it as just more Israeli propaganda rubbish. Having watched TV in the UK, I know what he and others are seeing on a day-in day-out basis, and I’m not surprised at the assumptions that underlie his writing.

Turning things upside down will not be easy. It will be expensive, which means that the Government of Israel and the Diaspora Jewish community will have to bear some of the burden, at least at first; and they will have to do so with sensitivity and the understanding that the creative people will have to be allowed enough freedom to do what they want.

But after all, the Arabs and their friends managed to change perceptions worldwide starting in 1967. Isn’t it time for the pendulum to swing back in our direction?

Technorati Tags: ,

Turks to ADL: ‘It ain’t over’

August 22nd, 2007

Apparently even the carefully calibrated statement made yesterday by the ADL, which stopped short of saying “the Ottomans committed genocide”, was too much for the Turks:

The Turkish ambassador is set to end his vacation two weeks early to return to Israel and register Turkey’s concerns about the Anti-Defamation League’s statement that Turkish actions toward the Armenians from 1915-1918 were “tantamount to genocide,” The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to send Namik Tan back on Thursday came at a high-level meeting at the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara on Wednesday. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is also expected to call Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the coming days to discuss the matter.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling the ADL statement “unfortunate,” and said Turkey expected that the statement would “be corrected.”Jerusalem Post [my emphasis]

What exactly does Erdogan have to say to Olmert about this? Or, more precisely, what will he threaten to do if Olmert can’t get Abraham Foxman of the ADL to take back his statement?

The thuggish Turks are also irritated that Foxman implied that a lack of Jewish support for the Turkish position might endanger the Turkish Jewish community:

“The Turkish Jewish community is part and parcel of our society, and there is no reason for them to have concerns,” the ministry said in its statement.

Keep in mind that the ADL’s original statement was made after a meeting with representatives of the Turkish Jews.

There is no question that Turkey is employing a “Jewish strategy”: What could be more effective than to get the Jews, victims of one of the most widely known genocides in history, to deny that the Ottomans had committed genocide? And how easy: Israel will do almost anything to be able to say that they have good relations with at least one Muslim nation, and the Turkish Jews are already hostages — it’s not even necessary to kidnap them Hamas-style.

But the Turks have made at least two serious miscalculations. First, Foxman is a very stubborn man. It is surprising to me that he went as far as he did to take the original statement back, even in the somewhat legalistic formulation that he used. He is not likely to recant at this point.

And this brings us to the second miscalculation. Why did Foxman change his stance? Because, like most Jews today, he has learned something from the Holocaust, and perhaps also from the denial of the Holocaust that is supported today by the greatest enemies of the Jewish people: there is a limit. Genocide is genocide. A Jew simply must be on the right side of this question.

So I doubt that the Turks’ “Jewish strategy” will work.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

ADL’s new statement struggles, fails

August 21st, 2007

ADL's Abraham FoxmanAbraham Foxman of the ADL has issued a new statement regarding the Armenian Genocide, which includes the following truly remarkable paragraph:

We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide. [my emphasis]

Does Mr. Foxman think he is writing some kind of international treaty whose language must be creatively ambiguous? Or perhaps one of those software licensing agreements?

What he should be saying is that the ADL was wrong in not applying the word ‘genocide’ to the aforesaid events, which in fact were a genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire. It would have been much easier to write than the tortured prose above, which is not going to win him a lot of friends among either Turks, Armenians, or Jews who understand the importance of calling genocide by its name.

The statement also includes the following explanation:

Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.

Of course I don’t know what threats the Turkish government has made. However, if they are attempting to hold the Turkish Jewish community hostage for actions taken by the US Congress, this should be exposed as a clear violation of their human rights, and Turkey should be censured for it.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Department of ‘what did they think would happen?’

August 21st, 2007

The Jerusalem Post reports,

Fatah’s armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, announced Tuesday it would no longer honor understandings reached with Israel, and called on its members to carry weapons to defend themselves against the IDF.

“We call on all our members who handed over their weapons to the Palestinian security forces to report to their commanders so that they can be issued new weapons,” said a leaflet distributed in Ramallah.

The group said the decision was made after the IDF arrested two Fatah gunmen who had been given amnesty by Israel in line with understandings reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

I wonder what the two were doing when they were arrested? This is beginning to sound exactly like the on-again-off-again ‘truce’ with Hamas in Gaza last year.

In any event, there will be plenty of weapons available to issue to them, thanks to the US, with Israel’s cooperation.

What did anybody think would happen?

Technorati Tags: , ,

The new root of the Mideast Conflict

August 19th, 2007

The forces that fed Mideast conflict in 1967 were primarily external. The local issues were reflections of the cold war between the Soviet bloc and the West. Now there is still fuel being poured on the fire from the new US-Russian conflict, but there are newer, internal pressures at work. Barry Rubin describes them.

Nationalists Versus Islamists: The Middle East’s Core Issue

By Barry Rubin

The Middle East is in a new era, very different from the politics and strategic situation we have been used to for so long.

For 55 years the region has lived under Arab nationalist dominance. Every Arab regime, except perhaps Sudan, is Arab nationalist, governed by that basic system and world view.

Of course, these regimes have governed badly, not keeping pledges to unite the Arab world, minimize Western influence, destroy Israel, or bring rapid social and economic progress. Still, they know how to stay in power.

Remember that the last real regime change from within an Arab state happened 37 years ago when Hafiz al-Asad seized power in Syria. Since then, surprisingly little has changed in Arab ideology, political structure, economic organization, or society.

It has also been 28 years since Iran’s Islamist revolution took power in 1979. Since then–though not solely because of that event–Islamism has been on the upsurge. Certainly, it also suffered setbacks, and almost three decades later Islamism had been unable to seize power anywhere, at least until Hamas’s recent triumph in Gaza.

What has happened now, however, is that radical Islamism has reached a critical mass. It now poses serious challenges to Arab nationalism as the leading opposition in every Arabic-speaking country. Islamism plays a key role in governing Iraq; Hamas defeated Fatah on the Palestinian front; and Hizballah is close to gaining at least equal power in Lebanon.

For years, probably decades, to come, the Middle East will be shaken by a titanic battle between Arab nationalism and Islamism for control. This struggle, and certainly not the Arab-Israeli conflict, is the central theme and underlying factor in every regional issue.

This is so for several reasons. One is that the Islamist cause is now promoted by an alliance including two regimes, Iran and Syria, as well as by Hamas and Hizballah, which both rule territory. Syria’s government, technically “secular” and ruled by a non-Muslim Alawite minority no less, behaves like an Islamist one, especially in its foreign policy, as to keep loyal its Sunni Muslim majority.

It is folly to think that this HISH alliance (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah) can be split. After all, the parties have common aims and ideologies, their cooperation is so mutually beneficial, and last but not least they think they are winning.

Historically, there were two barriers for Iran’s trying to become the Middle East’s leading power: the Persian-Arab and Shia-Sunni divides. How could Persian, Shia Iran appeal to Arabs who mostly were Sunni? The HISH alliance solves that problem. Three of the four members are Arab, and Hamas is Sunni as is the majority of Syrians. If one adds Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgency that breakthrough becomes even clearer.

Nor does this exhaust the Islamist forces working today to seize state power throughout the region. Al-Qaida is a factor, mostly in Iraq–where it cooperates closely with Syria–and Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida is far more a threat in terms of terrorism, however, than in a strategic sense. Since it has only one tactic, in comparison to other Islamists’ flexibility, al-Qaida is unlikely to take over any countries.

A third Islamist set of groups are Muslim Brotherhood movements. While Hamas arises from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, its Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian counterparts do not particularly like Iran or Shia Muslims. Still, they are also trying to transform Arab nationalist into Islamist states. Even if they use elections in pursuing this objective the goal remains the same.

To understand the region today all its issues have to be seen in the context of this nationalist-Islamist battle. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will greatly increase the power of HISH, the Arab regimes’ readiness to appease it, and the recruitment for Islamists of all types throughout the area.

In Lebanon, Hizballah, backed by Iran and Syria, seeks to control the government, or at least have veto power over its policies. In Iraq, Syrian-backed Sunni insurgents fight Shias among whom Iran has considerable influence. HISH hedges its bets but on both sides tries to turn Iraq into a client state. Among Palestinians, Hamas seeks full power over the movement by ensuring that war with Israel continues and by driving Fatah out of the West Bank.

On the other side, in theory, are all the Arab regimes except Syria plus Israel. In practice, though, these forces are far from united. Arab governments will try to cut their own deals or pursue their own interests. They may be privately happy if Israel defeats Hamas or Hizballah but they will scarcely provide any help or make peace.

A good example here is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis fight Iran but do so by giving money and recruits to the Iraqi insurgency or their ill-fated attempt to buy off Hamas by brokering a deal between that group and Fatah. Neither of these tactics has been very helpful. And the incompetence, corruption, and dictatorial nature of the Arab regimes–plus their Islamist-style extremist propaganda–all help foster more opposition.

Still, this does not at all mean the Islamists will win. No one should underestimate the Arab nationalist regimes, and there are huge problems with the Islamists’ strategy. What is vital, however, is to understand that past realities are now outmoded, and myths all-too-often dominant in media and academia are even more misleading.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, and author of the recently published The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Technorati Tags: , ,