In an under-publicized July meeting between president Obama and 14 Jewish organizations, The ADL's Abe Foxman told the president.
"I agree with your goal to bring peace to the Middle East, But the perception is that you're beating up only on Israel, and not on the Arabs. If you want Israel to take risks for peace, the best way is to make Israel feel that its staunch friend America is behind it."
"You are absolutely wrong," the president replied. "For the past eight years [under the Bush administration], Israel had a friend in the United States and it didn't make peace."
Abe Foxman continued:
"I came away from the meeting convinced that Obama has introduced a new and dangerous strategy and that it's revealing itself in steps," Foxman told Edward Klein. "Unlike other administrations, this one is applying linkage in the Middle East. It's saying that if you resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the messiah will come and the lions will lie down with the lambs." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-klein/the-jewish-problem-with-o_b_748082.html?ir=Politics)
Obama argued that America needed to pressure Israel because the Israel conflict was at the heart of Middle-east instability. In other words Obama was arguing the old Jimmy Carter linkage line, "it's Israels fault".
I have always opposed this oversimplified, and frankly dilettantish, conception of that conflict. At the same time I believe there is evidence of a different type of linkage at play.
Iran's Ahmadinejad plans on visiting Lebanon October 13-14 and already there is talk of an Lebanese civil war . It seems that Ahmadinejad is worried that prominent leaders of his proxy occupying force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, will be indited for the assassination of former premier of Lebanon Rafiq Harari(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-heading-toward-crisis-over-hariri-case-2010-10-05, Debka.com).
Meanwhile, another proxy of Iran, HAMAS, has done all it could, including killing four innocent civilians, to upend the most recent American instigated peace initiative. In Iraq, wikileaks documents exposed Iran's comprehensive role in multiple attacks against American/NATO forces as well as civilian Iraqis, in order to destabilize, and ultimately defeat Americas efforts.
Iran is also making a concerted effort to block Israeli-Syrian peace, realizing that such an accord would strengthen Israel's and Americas position in the region. While Turkey finds it easier to dissolve old alliances in the region as they see Iran as an alternative to America and Israel (!).
Now there is evidence of Iran's bloody work in Yemen, Afghanistan (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/afghan-police-seize-22-tons-of-explosives-from-iran-20101006-ncx), and North Korea.
All these leads me to the conclusion that Jimmy Carter/Obama/destabilizing-left and co. are right about the existence of linkage (please see post on "linkers and thinkers", for more) in the Middle-east. Only its the Iran threat, not the Israel/Palestinian conflict, that is at the root of instability in the region.
Ironically the Iran problem is allot easier to solve.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A Case Study in Subjective Journalism Gone Wild: Haaretz and the Middle East
Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why Every War in The Middle East Weakens the Palestinians
Despite Netanyahu’s unprecedented freeze of all construction in the disputed territories PA/PLO/Fatah leader Abbas refuses to have direct negotiations with Israel demanding that Israel first concede most of what is supposed to be negotiated. Meanwhile Hezbollah/Lebanon attacks an Israeli patrol, which was cutting down a tree, after informing the UN peace-keepers as per the UNSC resolution 1701 agreement. Perhaps trying to deflect attention from the indictment of senior Hezbollah operatives for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.
Both of these developments could have happened ten years ago and we wouldn’t have known the difference. At the same time they reveal yet another fallacy in pro-Palestinian thinking.
You see the average Jew on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid, Quebec, Burn, Berlin , Amsterdam etc. knows exactly what to expect during any conflict in the middle east, anti-Semitism, boycotts, media libel, and flag-burning/destructive protests etc. Eventually many Jews decide that they are no longer welcome in these countries, especially the ones which are rapidly filling with Muslim immigrants. Because it is usually those Muslim immigrants who target anything Jewish, and it is the host governments which are faced with the difficult option of integrating Muslims but often find it easier to allow them an avenue to hate, the Jews are a convenient target.
So the hardworking Jew, probably a doctor, scientist, or financial analyst returns home one day perhaps with drying blood/spittle on their shirt, a light injury contributed by the dregs of their society a disaffected Muslim, left wing, or right wins thug. They sit down with their family take of their hat covering/hiding their kippa, and describe how they were jumped on a train full of people by a group of bums shouting “death to Israel” or too “bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” -they tried to defend themselves but there were too many cowards…
Why not move to Israel, there our family will be protected, after all it is one of the most successful countries in the world were Jews are allowed to protect themselves and if there is discrimination is doesn’t target Jews. They move to Israel and help contribute to the latest scientific breakthrough perhaps another Nobel prize!
The above is exactly what is going on all over the Jewish-world Israel is seeing the largest influx of Jews from North America, France and the UK since the 90’s. Never mind the steady flow of Jews from Africa, and Asia. The fact of the matter is that every war in the Middle East increases immigration to Israel, and Israel becomes stronger. The byproduct of this inevitability is that Palestinians and those who encourage their self immolation -most of the power hungry Muslim middle-east, become weaker.
It is ironic considering that that many Palestinians/left-wingers/demographers and one state advocates, believe openly or otherwise that it is just a matter of time before Israel’s Jewish majority devolves into a minority. The argument in their mind is that we can outwait the Jews and in the intern make their lives miserable (as if this somehow encourages ambivalent Jews to accept the notion that if there was no state of Israel they would have equal rights in Palestine!).
Yet what happens if Frances 500,000 plus Jewish community or even a fraction of the Americas 7 million plus Jewish population feels like they need to move to Israel? Let us further postulate that many of these Jews find that the West Bank is really cheap… But further aggressions by Hezbollah and HAMAS, stirred by their masters in Iran is exactly what actualizes the above scenario. And runs contrary to the line of reasoning that supports Abbas’s refusal to negotiate, as war strengthens Israel.
Some with noxious conspirator tendencies (those who are adept at taking a kernel of truth and using it to prove a lie please see post for discussion on this tendency: http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-even-if-jews-do-control-americas.html) conclude that this proves that anti-Semitism is fomented by Israel, or by the ADL. Unlikely, but either way the longer the Palestinians wait to get their act together and give up on their dream of greater Palestine, the more war and thus the smaller their chances of having a land of their own. This is besides the fact that in every war with Israel the arab/muslims always sustain more casualties.
For those who are really pro-Palestinians (not anti-Israel), you would do well to encourage less war and more conversation.
Both of these developments could have happened ten years ago and we wouldn’t have known the difference. At the same time they reveal yet another fallacy in pro-Palestinian thinking.
You see the average Jew on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid, Quebec, Burn, Berlin , Amsterdam etc. knows exactly what to expect during any conflict in the middle east, anti-Semitism, boycotts, media libel, and flag-burning/destructive protests etc. Eventually many Jews decide that they are no longer welcome in these countries, especially the ones which are rapidly filling with Muslim immigrants. Because it is usually those Muslim immigrants who target anything Jewish, and it is the host governments which are faced with the difficult option of integrating Muslims but often find it easier to allow them an avenue to hate, the Jews are a convenient target.
So the hardworking Jew, probably a doctor, scientist, or financial analyst returns home one day perhaps with drying blood/spittle on their shirt, a light injury contributed by the dregs of their society a disaffected Muslim, left wing, or right wins thug. They sit down with their family take of their hat covering/hiding their kippa, and describe how they were jumped on a train full of people by a group of bums shouting “death to Israel” or too “bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” -they tried to defend themselves but there were too many cowards…
Why not move to Israel, there our family will be protected, after all it is one of the most successful countries in the world were Jews are allowed to protect themselves and if there is discrimination is doesn’t target Jews. They move to Israel and help contribute to the latest scientific breakthrough perhaps another Nobel prize!
The above is exactly what is going on all over the Jewish-world Israel is seeing the largest influx of Jews from North America, France and the UK since the 90’s. Never mind the steady flow of Jews from Africa, and Asia. The fact of the matter is that every war in the Middle East increases immigration to Israel, and Israel becomes stronger. The byproduct of this inevitability is that Palestinians and those who encourage their self immolation -most of the power hungry Muslim middle-east, become weaker.
It is ironic considering that that many Palestinians/left-wingers/demographers and one state advocates, believe openly or otherwise that it is just a matter of time before Israel’s Jewish majority devolves into a minority. The argument in their mind is that we can outwait the Jews and in the intern make their lives miserable (as if this somehow encourages ambivalent Jews to accept the notion that if there was no state of Israel they would have equal rights in Palestine!).
Yet what happens if Frances 500,000 plus Jewish community or even a fraction of the Americas 7 million plus Jewish population feels like they need to move to Israel? Let us further postulate that many of these Jews find that the West Bank is really cheap… But further aggressions by Hezbollah and HAMAS, stirred by their masters in Iran is exactly what actualizes the above scenario. And runs contrary to the line of reasoning that supports Abbas’s refusal to negotiate, as war strengthens Israel.
Some with noxious conspirator tendencies (those who are adept at taking a kernel of truth and using it to prove a lie please see post for discussion on this tendency: http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-even-if-jews-do-control-americas.html) conclude that this proves that anti-Semitism is fomented by Israel, or by the ADL. Unlikely, but either way the longer the Palestinians wait to get their act together and give up on their dream of greater Palestine, the more war and thus the smaller their chances of having a land of their own. This is besides the fact that in every war with Israel the arab/muslims always sustain more casualties.
For those who are really pro-Palestinians (not anti-Israel), you would do well to encourage less war and more conversation.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Why Did Netanyahu Agree To Return The Confiscated Flotilla Ships?!
On July 23, in conference with his "council of seven", Netanyahu announced that Israel will accede to Turkey’s demand that Israel return the confiscated flotilla ships. Debka.com reports that Netanyahu once again has misguided hopes that the Israeli-Turkish relationship can be revived. “Misguided” because this is only the latest effort to engage with Turkey, all the previous initiatives failed. It was only last month that a failed “secret” meeting between trade and labor minister Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu blew up in Netanyahu’s face because Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, was not consulted with.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
One can only wonder why Netanyahu agreed to return the ships. Some see it as a botched effort to head off yet another biased UN probe, this time investigating the flotilla fiasco. Others see it as a way to support the opposition's stance in Turkey, especially the military because it will show that Israel does want a positive relationship. The opposition and military in Turkey understands this and will use Israel’s action as proof of the potential for a return to normal relations (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/erdogan-and-turkey-are-israels-right.html). This assertion is supported by the fact that Israel actually transferred the final four Heron UAV’s to Turkey, i.e. Israel is maintaining its military ties. At the same time Turkey turned around and violated the terms of sale when they used the UAV’s to target PKK fighters in Syria. By using Israeli UAV’s in conjunction with Syria, Turkey is sharing Israeli military secrets with a nation that it is in a state of war with Israel.
Regardless, Netanyahu looks like an unrepentant fool.
It is clear that Erdogan’s Turkey will continue on its path of reckless hostility towards Israel, even while the government's domestic position continues to weaken. Furthermore there is conclusive evidence, coming from Ankara, that Ankara had good reason to support IHH’s botched efforts (NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/middleeast/16turkey.html). Ankara enabled a pivotal event in an ongoing proxy war on Israel the moment the boat full of “activists” embarked with the approval of Ankara with aims of defying Jerusalem. To those that argue that it was not the government of Turkey which aided and abetted the enemies of Israel, the flotilla, but rather a private charity organization, consider this: Turkey openly meets with Hamas leaders, the sworn enemies of Israel (which I will address in the near future), offering legitimacy, encouragement, and who knows what else. Turkey openly and unabashedly supports a terrorist organization whose goal is the destruction of Israel. So why wouldn’t Erdogan’s government covertly support the homicidal flotilla? Erdogan’s Turkey perceives Israel as a barrier to its designs on becoming the regional power.
You would think that the ultimate victor in the flotilla encounter (if that term can be used), Israel, would not return the vehicles of war to its enemy.
Either Netanyahu doesn’t understand that Erdogan’s Turkey is an enemy, or there is something else amiss.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
When Will the International Community Defend the People of Gaza!
Yesterday a factory in the South of Israel was destroyed by a rocket launched from Gaza. Whether this was a serendipitous strike or a demonstration of Hamas' ability to hit specific targets, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that in recent weeks there has been an up-tick in mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza, and Israeli retaliation.
Does the Huffington Post, the New York Times or the plethora of anti-Israel media-outlets from Russia to Britain, or UNHRC report this or other "minor" events?
Where is this going? If Israel is attacked continuously eventually even Israel will respond. But its response will not only reflect the most recent rocket attacks ("only a few rockets, that have no aim and do little damage"), but the months or even years of provocation (6000 rockets, that have not killed many by pure chance, but have reduced whole cities into trenches and traumatized thousands).
What does this mean for the million plus Gazans? Does it mean the blockade will be lifted? Does it mean that somehow Israel will disappear and HAMAS will have what its Charter declares?
No!
It means that hundreds of teenagers turned terrorists will be killed, and along with them scores of human shields that inevitably "happen" to be in the vicinity. It means that hospitals, schools, and jobs will be destroyed. It means that Palestinians will suffer, not just the shame of being searched for terror weapons that some carry when entering Israel, but that in their own homes they will be die as sure as their roof is used for launching pads.
When will the international community protest HAMAS' and other terror groups' methodical, predictable, and repetitive use of yellow journalism BEFORE blood has been spilled?
Instead of falling prey to the chicanery of HAMAS and like minded terrorists -responding retroactively to the mayhem and destruction- condemn HAMAS for every rocket.
Let there be no question amongst their leadership, population, or region what will happen if they continue.
Today it is a handful of rockets and the destruction of a tunnel, tomorrow...
When will the international community defend the people of Gaza?
Does the Huffington Post, the New York Times or the plethora of anti-Israel media-outlets from Russia to Britain, or UNHRC report this or other "minor" events?
Where is this going? If Israel is attacked continuously eventually even Israel will respond. But its response will not only reflect the most recent rocket attacks ("only a few rockets, that have no aim and do little damage"), but the months or even years of provocation (6000 rockets, that have not killed many by pure chance, but have reduced whole cities into trenches and traumatized thousands).
What does this mean for the million plus Gazans? Does it mean the blockade will be lifted? Does it mean that somehow Israel will disappear and HAMAS will have what its Charter declares?
No!
It means that hundreds of teenagers turned terrorists will be killed, and along with them scores of human shields that inevitably "happen" to be in the vicinity. It means that hospitals, schools, and jobs will be destroyed. It means that Palestinians will suffer, not just the shame of being searched for terror weapons that some carry when entering Israel, but that in their own homes they will be die as sure as their roof is used for launching pads.
When will the international community protest HAMAS' and other terror groups' methodical, predictable, and repetitive use of yellow journalism BEFORE blood has been spilled?
Instead of falling prey to the chicanery of HAMAS and like minded terrorists -responding retroactively to the mayhem and destruction- condemn HAMAS for every rocket.
Let there be no question amongst their leadership, population, or region what will happen if they continue.
Today it is a handful of rockets and the destruction of a tunnel, tomorrow...
When will the international community defend the people of Gaza?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (2)
2. The Higher Standard or Thomas Friedman, Perspective.
This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.
Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.
This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.
So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.
3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.
This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).
Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.
Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.
This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.
Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.
All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.
So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?
In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.
In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.
In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.
The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.
Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.
So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?
Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.
This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.
Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.
This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.
So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.
3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.
This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).
Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.
Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.
This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.
Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.
All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.
So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?
In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.
In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.
In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.
The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.
Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.
So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?
Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Should Israel End the Gaza Blockade? Three Answers and Two Ironies
There are reports emerging that the Turkish Foreign minister Ahmet Davutogu, has offered to normalize relations with Israel if Israel lifted the blockade of Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-to-normalize-israeli-ties-if-gaza-blockade-ends-1.293757).
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
