Obama at Buchenwald: The problem isn't admitting past mass murders of Jews but preventing new ones
By Barry Rubin
During President Barack Obama's visit to the Buchenwald concentration camp, the following exchange took place:
NBC New's TOM Brokaw: "What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?"
Obama: "Well, look, there's no equivalency here."
The president almost sounds rattled, as if it is dawning on him just how much harm he has done, what demons he has unintentionally unleashed, by things he has said and left unsaid.
Some see Brokaw's question as an attempt to suggest there is some equivalency here. A lot of academic and media nonsense has already promoted this idea. Indeed, Obama's speech in Cairo--though he didn't intend this (but then he doesn't intend a lot of problems he creates due to his lack of knowledge about the region, its history, and international affairs in general)--contributed to such views by its ham-handed structuring and content.
Indeed, there are those who have looked at the Buchenwald model for guidance. The founder of the Palestinian national movement, Amin al-Husseini, spent World War Two in Berlin as an ally of Hitler. He also asked for his staff to visit working concentration camps. The purpose of the visit was to know how to create similar facilities for Jews in the British mandate of Palestine when Germany captured it and turned it over to him.
But I'm glad to answer Brokaw's question.
From Buchenwald, Israelis learned that others will usually not stand up for them. Jews--many of them today's Israelis--watched as Britain, France, and other countries wouldn't stop Hitler and indeed were ready to "engage" with him. Just as European countries and many in America are willing to do today with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah despite their openly genocidal programs.
Israelis learned that your neighbors may well turn on you out of greed or antisemitism or for their self-preservation or to avoid conflict. At worst, they will turn you in to the Nazis; at best they ll feel bad.
When Jews in the 1930s called for a boycott of Nazi Germany there was no support from other groups. Many said this behavior was alarmist, unnecessary, and that Jews were trying to drag America or other countries into war for their own reasons. Others didn't want to lose the money they made in these transactions. Just like today.
In the British archives I read documents in which British officials expressed their hopes that boats on which Jews were trying to escape from Nazi-occupied countries were turned back to their places of origin. In 1945 and after, British policy proposed forcing Jewish survivors back to Germany and Poland.
Lesson: Don't put your trust in foreign princes but in your own strength and strategy.
Israelis also learned that while others discount the threat to you--Hitler doesn't really mean what he's saying--you better ignore all the experts and politicians and academics and journalists who argue that there is no real danger, that the Germans were just people who wanted a good life and nice things for their children. Just like today.
They learned to understand the irrational and ideological in politics, the kind of thing that most European and American leaders don't comprehend nowadays. Committing the Holocaust helped German lose the war, but the regime there was more interested in wiping out Jews than in the welfare of its own people and even its own pragmatic interests. Just like most Middle East regimes today.
Lesson: If Iran's president says he's going to wipe you off the map, and so do Syria, Hamas, Hizballah and many others, take them at their word.
In addition, Israelis learned that whatever Jews do will be criticized, mistakes exaggerated, concessions unappreciated. And so the Jews who saw what happened or experienced it themselves knew they had to have their own country, which defended itself, and could define its people's own interests.
There's something nowadays we call double standards. If America accidentally kills Afghan civilians, it is forgiven. If Sri Lanka kills thousands of civilians it is two paragraphs in a back page. If Hamas and Fatah deliberately kill Israeli civilians as their main strategy this proves to some they must be engaged and their grievances resolved. If Iran's regime calls for mass murder, it is not a big enough deal to make that state a pariah.
But it Israel accidentally kills civilians being used as human shields by Hamas or Hizballah, in wars set off by attacks on itself, many seem to believe it has lost any right to exist. Incidentally, as of now, not a single incident has been documented for the Gaza war earlier this year showing that anything Israel did was anything other than within the bounds of law and proper behavior.
Yet, despite all this, according to the U.S. State Department report on antisemitism for 2007, “Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace."
So let’s talk about the Nazis. There should have already been more than enough discussion about this in the more than half-century since Adolf Hitler’s bunker fell in 1945. There have been hundreds and thousands of books, articles, speeches, and so on about what is commonly known as the Holocaust.
But apparently it hasn’t been enough, or well enough understood.
The Nazis were not just mean people. They had an explicit doctrine of being superior human beings and of the Jews and others (especially Slavs and non-white peoples, except for their ally, Japan,) of being sub-humans who should be wiped out. Homosexuals and Gypsies would all be killed. Let's underline that point: every single Jew who the Germans could reach would be murdered until no Jews survived.
That's why places like Buchenwald were created.
None of this resembles Zionism, which has no interest in physically harming any Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian except in the context of self-defense against an armed military threat.
But it does resemble radical Islamism and radical Arab nationalism which seeks to wipe out Israel, the Jews, and, in the case of many or most Islamists, Christians, too.
The second main point in Nazi ideology is that their ideology and regime should rule the world.
This does not resemble Zionism either. To put it bluntly, Zionism as an ideology has absolutely no interest in the world as a whole. It focuses only on building a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
But clearly radical Arab nationalism and radical Islam aspire to rule the Middle East. In their more ambitious moments, Islamists do say they intend to rule the world.
The third main point in Nazi ideology is that it held that Germans and other Aryans were superior to other peoples or races
Despite much slander going back to the Middle Ages, neither Judaism or Zionism hold this belief. In fact, these doctrines are uninterested in defining anyone else at all. They are self-centered ideas, not concepts of superiority.
Zionism has never argued that Jews are better but only that Jews are a people with the same rights as other peoples. The concept is on asserting Jewish equality, not superiority. Indeed, if anything, it has stressed that Jews should be more like other peoples.
But a huge literature in Islamism and Arab nationalism exists claiming superiority and the need to fight other groups or religions, which are seen as intrinsically hostile. Many Islamists argue that these others, non-Muslims, are intended by the deity to be subordinate.
There is, therefore, an ideology which does have a lot in common with Nazism. It the enemy of the state of Israel: radical Islamism. That ideology claims that other religions are inferior, that the people who hold them are evil, that Jews and Christians are evil, and that Islam should rule the world. The Hamas Charter quotes a source on this point: “You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind….Ignominy shall be their portion” for non-Muslims unless they convert to Islam.
At a minimum, if radical Islamist ideology doesn't seek the extinction of all Jews in the world, it certainly favors the elimination of the vast majority--the half in Israel and the large part of the other half that supports it. The Hamas Charter says that only by killing all the Jews can the messianic era come and that Jews are the cause of all the world’s problems. Oh, yes, and it also calls Israel a “Nazi-like society.”
Mind you, these are the people controlling the Gaza Strip, firing rockets daily at Israel, teaching their children by television and in the classroom that killing Jews is their highest duty and honor, sending gunmen to murder Jewish students deliberately, and then celebrating that fact.
Here is what a ninth-grade Saudi textbook and many other Islamic materials say quoting a well-known alleged saying of one of that religion's founders: The Day of Judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will call upon the Muslim: 'O Muslim, O slave of Allah! there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"
Let’s return, however, to the original and self-described Nazis to get a sense of what it means to have a Nazi policy.
My father’s family comes from the village of Dolhinov which was in Poland, a few miles from the Russian border. Most of the inhabitants were Jews. By 1941, there were more than 5,000 Jews in Dolhinov, about half had lived there for centuries, the other half were refugees from the part of Poland already under German rule. On June 22, 1941, the Germans invaded the USSR and they entered Dolhinov six days later. Nobody in Dolhinov had a gun. No one fired a single shot at a German soldier.
What was the Nazi policy? All the Jews were forced into a ghetto. On March 3, 1942, the Germans murdered the rabbi and 22 other men. On March 28, about half the Jews in town were forced into two warehouses which were set on fire. Anyone trying to escape was machinegunned. Between April 29 and May 1, all the rest of the Jewish inhabitants, except for a few kept temporarily as workers, were shot and thrown into a big ditch. The rest were murdered on May 21. Of 4,000 Jews then living into town, around 93 percent were killed deliberately and systematically. And if the Nazis had their way it would have been 100 percent.
The only survivors were about 300 people who fled into the forest and were saved in large part because a small number of Soviet partisan commanders protected them. Virtually every survivor--often the sole survivor in their entire families--came to Israel, where they rebuilt their lives.
Today, these people and their descendants have the dubious privilege of being compared to the Nazis by large parts of the world, including many who enjoy privileged lives in democratic countries.
This is my great aunt’s family on my grandfather’s side. Haya Doba Rubin, her husband Aharon Perlmutter, and their two sons, Haim who was 12 years old and Jacob who was 10 years old were murdered. No survivors.
This is my great uncle’s family on my grandmother’s side. Samuel Grosbein married Rivka Markman and they had two children, Leah Rivka, 18 years old, and Lev, 23 years old. All of them were murdered on the same day. No survivors.
Here is the family of my great aunt on my grandmother’s side. Rahel Grosbein married Yirimayahu Dimenshtein and they had two children, Moshe, 21 years old and Tova, 16 years old. The first three were murdered on the same day. Only Tova survived because she had fled into the forest.
That is what a Nazi policy is like. Multiply that by six million for the Jews alone and more for Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others.
Let’s compare this with a conventional Western democratic war-fighting policy. The goal here is to defeat the enemy army but it has been permissible to strike against the economy and infrastructure as well. There is no intent to kill civilians but they may be hit by accident. During World War Two, U.S. and British warplanes engaged in carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities as well as factories where civilian workers were employed. Tens of thousands of French civilians were killed in raids on targets in that country, in one diversionary raid alone in September 1943, there were 500 such casualties in one small village, Le Portel.
To my knowledge, no Allied soldiers were punished for killing civilians by accident or through carelessness. Nobody was court-martialed for shooting prisoners.
Israeli policy is far more careful to avoid injuring civilians. Most airstrikes are against specific buildings or even individual automobiles. Civilian bystanders have been killed yet far fewer proportionately than has been true for, say, the U.S. or French armies. Soldiers have been tried and punished for actions which would be ignored in Western armies.
There is no instance I know of in which Israeli units opened unlimited fire on a crowd, even when rocks were thrown or shots fired against them. Individual targets were picked out. Demonstrators were killed in ones or twos, sometimes because they were armed, sometimes accidentally. If Israelis were as their enemies picture them to be, there would be hundreds of Palestinians killed in a single day, tens of thousands each year, hundreds of thousands by mass murder techniques. None of this has ever happened.
Thus, even if Israel is held to a double standard, its record has been better than that of even Western counterparts. Only by lying about that record—the norm in the Arabic-speaking world and all-to-common in the Western one—can it be made to seem terrible.
What few people in the West know is that the Arabic-language media daily claims Israel has committed massacres and atrocities that never happened. By constant repetition passionate hatred is built up based on lies. In the West misreporting is often dangerously slanderous, often because it repeats things that are simply false.
We need only remember what the Nazis believed and did, what Israelis believe and do, and what their enemies believe and do. It should not be so hard to understand the distinctions.
So in summary, Mr. Brokaw, the single most important lesson we learned from Buchenwald is this: Never again.
We know that the Western world is very fond of dead Jews, at least once they are dead. It is no great act of heroism to insist that a mass murder of Jews happened more than 60 years ago. What we need today is people who will expose those who want to repeat the process, to help Israel defend itself against such people.
But, Mr. Brokaw, let me ask a question: What can you learn from President Obama's visit to Buchenwald? Let me limit myself to two points
First, if you and others advise us to behave in a way and to follow policies that would lead to a similar outcome at the hands of the closest thing to the Nazis that exist in our contemporary era, we will ignore that advice.
Second, ask yourself why you and others slander us and portray us as villains rather than victims at the same time that you whitewash terrorist and would-be committers of genocide.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Friday, June 5, 2009
Obama's Cairo Speech and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Good Intentions Plus Misunderstanding Equals Failure
By Barry Rubin, June 5, 2009
President Barack Obama’s discussion in his Cairo speech of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so important that it took up about 25 percent of the text.
Obama sought to put the United States into a neutral rather than pro-Israel position. This is not so unusual as it might seem compared to the 35 years U.S. policy has been trying to be a credible mediator, a length of time many forget--including Obama himself—through numerous peace plans and negotiating structures.
The speech is beautifully constructed and carefully crafted. But what does it say, both intentionally and implicitly?
Obama began by stressing U.S.-Israel links, not downplaying or concealing this from his Muslim audience:
“America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”
He then makes two points: the reality of the Shoah (Holocaust) and opposition to wiping Israel off the map:
“Threatening Israel with destruction--or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews--is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”
Previous presidents have often said such but Obama is wrapping this in his attempt to show Muslims he is on their side it might be deemed especially effective. But putting almost all emphasis on the Holocaust—which in Arab and Muslim views is a European crime whose bill they are unfairly paying—may be the wrong approach.
He also roots Jews desire for their own country mainly in persecution, to which the Arab/Muslim answer has been that this isn’t their responsibility or that Jews can live happily—as Obama wrongly hints they have done in the past—under Muslim rule.
While Obama tries hard, his approach may reverberate only for a small minority of politically powerless Western-oriented liberals who already understand it.
Turning to Palestinians, he uses an appealing image but one so wrong that it undermines Obama’s entire approach. The Palestinians, he says, have “suffered in pursuit of a homeland” for more than 60 years.
But if that were true the issue would have been solved 60 years ago (1948 through partition), 30 years ago (1979 and Anwar Sadat’s initiative) or 9 years ago (Camp David-2). What has brought Palestinian suffering is the priority on total victory and Israel’s destruction rather than merely getting a homeland. This is the reason why the conflict won’t be solved in the next week, month, or year.
Obama states, “The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” But in real political terms that’s untrue. If it were true, the leadership would move quickly to improve their situation rather than continue the struggle seeking total victory. The Oslo agreement of 1993 and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were both based on this premise and both failed miserably for this very reason.
And so will Obama’s effort.
Pulling out of Gaza, for instance, Israel urged the Palestinian Authority to provide stability, improve living standards, and stop the war on Israel. Huge amounts of money were provided. And the result has been evident.
For Obama, Palestine is what Iraq was for George W. Bush. By rebuilding and reshaping its situation, providing its people with good lives and democracy, he expects to win Arab and Muslim gratitude. Obama’s supporters have ridiculed Bush for trying to remake other peoples, cultures, and countries. The same point applies to Obama.
He concludes, “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.” True. But what else is new? Israelis’ aspirations—despite misunderstandings by others--can certainly be met by this outcome. The same is not true for Palestinian aspirations as they really exist, rather than as Westerners think they should be.
While Obama might have said it in a different way, his words echo those of the last five American presidents. In the way he argues, however, Obama reveals his weakness in dealing with these issues. First he says—and this sounds wonderful to Western ears:
“Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed,” citing the American civil rights’ movement as example. This sounds noble but it is silly because it ignores the social and ideological context.
Fatah believes it got control of the West Bank and leadership of the Palestinian people through violence and killing. Hamas in Gaza; Hizballah and Syria in Lebanon; and Iran’s Islamist regime as well as the Muslim Brotherhoods believe that “resistance” works.
From the standpoint of Palestinian leaders, violence and killing are not failures. Moreover, violence and killing are commensurate with the goal of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian leadership, which is total victory. Their main alternative “peaceful” strategy is the demand—shared by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas—that pretty much all Palestinians who wish to do so must be allowed to live in Israel. A formula for more violence and killing.
Obama also says: “Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people.” This, of course, is what we’ve been hearing since 1993, when the responsibility for governing was supposed to transform Yasir Arafat from terrorist to statesman. Isn’t there some reason that this didn’t happen?
He continues: “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.”
The mind reels. Hamas doesn’t just have support, it governs the Gaza Strip. It disagrees with Obama. Fulfilling Palestinian aspirations means for it creating an Islamist state from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. Unifying the Palestinian people means for it seizing control of the West Bank also and putting all the territories under its rule.
And what will Obama do when nobody behaves the way he wants them to? In this respect, Israel is not his problem, though he doesn’t seem to understand that yet.
Consider the otherworldliness of what he says about Israel. Here’s an example: “The continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.” Actually, the latter point is precisely the current Israeli government’s policy. As for Gaza, mitigating the alleged humanitarian crisis means strengthening a Hamas government. Ending the “crisis,” by opening the borders and infusing lots of money that will inevitably be used to strengthen Hamas’s rule threatens Israel’s security far more than the status quo.
One of Obama’s best lines was to say, “The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.” But this is so basic to the needs of the existing regimes, why would the governments respond to Obama’s call to do this, any more than to Bush’s urging for democracy?
Here’s Obama’s main theme: “Privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”
This argument—peace is rational so just do it!--has been the basic concept governing Western policy toward the issue at least since the late 1970s. Even before. In 1955, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked why the Arabs and Israelis didn’t settle their differences like “Christian gentlemen?” Obama is more cultural sensitive, but his ethnocentric approach is basically the same.
After decades we are no closer to implementing this idea, perhaps even further. Obama’s task is to come to understand why this is so. Here’s one hint: almost all Israelis publicly support a Palestinian state if it leads to a stable peace. Those Muslims ready for full peace with Israel are still a minority who are too afraid to speak other than “privately.” This imbalance explains why the conflict continues, who is responsible for it, and what must be done to change that situation.
-----------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
By Barry Rubin, June 5, 2009
President Barack Obama’s discussion in his Cairo speech of the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so important that it took up about 25 percent of the text.
Obama sought to put the United States into a neutral rather than pro-Israel position. This is not so unusual as it might seem compared to the 35 years U.S. policy has been trying to be a credible mediator, a length of time many forget--including Obama himself—through numerous peace plans and negotiating structures.
The speech is beautifully constructed and carefully crafted. But what does it say, both intentionally and implicitly?
Obama began by stressing U.S.-Israel links, not downplaying or concealing this from his Muslim audience:
“America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”
He then makes two points: the reality of the Shoah (Holocaust) and opposition to wiping Israel off the map:
“Threatening Israel with destruction--or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews--is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”
Previous presidents have often said such but Obama is wrapping this in his attempt to show Muslims he is on their side it might be deemed especially effective. But putting almost all emphasis on the Holocaust—which in Arab and Muslim views is a European crime whose bill they are unfairly paying—may be the wrong approach.
He also roots Jews desire for their own country mainly in persecution, to which the Arab/Muslim answer has been that this isn’t their responsibility or that Jews can live happily—as Obama wrongly hints they have done in the past—under Muslim rule.
While Obama tries hard, his approach may reverberate only for a small minority of politically powerless Western-oriented liberals who already understand it.
Turning to Palestinians, he uses an appealing image but one so wrong that it undermines Obama’s entire approach. The Palestinians, he says, have “suffered in pursuit of a homeland” for more than 60 years.
But if that were true the issue would have been solved 60 years ago (1948 through partition), 30 years ago (1979 and Anwar Sadat’s initiative) or 9 years ago (Camp David-2). What has brought Palestinian suffering is the priority on total victory and Israel’s destruction rather than merely getting a homeland. This is the reason why the conflict won’t be solved in the next week, month, or year.
Obama states, “The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.” But in real political terms that’s untrue. If it were true, the leadership would move quickly to improve their situation rather than continue the struggle seeking total victory. The Oslo agreement of 1993 and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip were both based on this premise and both failed miserably for this very reason.
And so will Obama’s effort.
Pulling out of Gaza, for instance, Israel urged the Palestinian Authority to provide stability, improve living standards, and stop the war on Israel. Huge amounts of money were provided. And the result has been evident.
For Obama, Palestine is what Iraq was for George W. Bush. By rebuilding and reshaping its situation, providing its people with good lives and democracy, he expects to win Arab and Muslim gratitude. Obama’s supporters have ridiculed Bush for trying to remake other peoples, cultures, and countries. The same point applies to Obama.
He concludes, “The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.” True. But what else is new? Israelis’ aspirations—despite misunderstandings by others--can certainly be met by this outcome. The same is not true for Palestinian aspirations as they really exist, rather than as Westerners think they should be.
While Obama might have said it in a different way, his words echo those of the last five American presidents. In the way he argues, however, Obama reveals his weakness in dealing with these issues. First he says—and this sounds wonderful to Western ears:
“Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed,” citing the American civil rights’ movement as example. This sounds noble but it is silly because it ignores the social and ideological context.
Fatah believes it got control of the West Bank and leadership of the Palestinian people through violence and killing. Hamas in Gaza; Hizballah and Syria in Lebanon; and Iran’s Islamist regime as well as the Muslim Brotherhoods believe that “resistance” works.
From the standpoint of Palestinian leaders, violence and killing are not failures. Moreover, violence and killing are commensurate with the goal of the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian leadership, which is total victory. Their main alternative “peaceful” strategy is the demand—shared by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas—that pretty much all Palestinians who wish to do so must be allowed to live in Israel. A formula for more violence and killing.
Obama also says: “Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people.” This, of course, is what we’ve been hearing since 1993, when the responsibility for governing was supposed to transform Yasir Arafat from terrorist to statesman. Isn’t there some reason that this didn’t happen?
He continues: “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.”
The mind reels. Hamas doesn’t just have support, it governs the Gaza Strip. It disagrees with Obama. Fulfilling Palestinian aspirations means for it creating an Islamist state from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. Unifying the Palestinian people means for it seizing control of the West Bank also and putting all the territories under its rule.
And what will Obama do when nobody behaves the way he wants them to? In this respect, Israel is not his problem, though he doesn’t seem to understand that yet.
Consider the otherworldliness of what he says about Israel. Here’s an example: “The continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.” Actually, the latter point is precisely the current Israeli government’s policy. As for Gaza, mitigating the alleged humanitarian crisis means strengthening a Hamas government. Ending the “crisis,” by opening the borders and infusing lots of money that will inevitably be used to strengthen Hamas’s rule threatens Israel’s security far more than the status quo.
One of Obama’s best lines was to say, “The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.” But this is so basic to the needs of the existing regimes, why would the governments respond to Obama’s call to do this, any more than to Bush’s urging for democracy?
Here’s Obama’s main theme: “Privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”
This argument—peace is rational so just do it!--has been the basic concept governing Western policy toward the issue at least since the late 1970s. Even before. In 1955, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles asked why the Arabs and Israelis didn’t settle their differences like “Christian gentlemen?” Obama is more cultural sensitive, but his ethnocentric approach is basically the same.
After decades we are no closer to implementing this idea, perhaps even further. Obama’s task is to come to understand why this is so. Here’s one hint: almost all Israelis publicly support a Palestinian state if it leads to a stable peace. Those Muslims ready for full peace with Israel are still a minority who are too afraid to speak other than “privately.” This imbalance explains why the conflict continues, who is responsible for it, and what must be done to change that situation.
-----------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Do Obama's words reveal his Middle East sympathies?
A close examination of the speech underscores how Obama, four months into his presidency, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.
By Peter Wallsten June 5, 2009 LA Times
Reporting from Washington -- As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama left some fuzzy edges to his biography. He affirmed strong support for Israel but implied a strong empathy for Palestinians. His personal story played up his introduction to the black church, leaving his father's Islamic roots in the shadows.
It was a narrative designed to ease any voter concern about Obama's background and counter false Internet rumors that he was a Muslim.
But now, with Thursday's speech in Cairo, Obama is laying bare more of his sympathies and inclinations in the volatile area of Middle East politics.
Obama spoke, for example, of Palestinian "resistance" -- a word that can cast Israel as an illegitimate occupier. He drew parallels between Palestinians and the struggles of black Americans in slavery and of black South Africans during apartheid. Both references made some allies of Israel uneasy.
Moreover, in his defense of Israel's legitimacy, Obama cited the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism, but not the belief of some Jews that their claim to the land is rooted in the Bible and reaches back thousands of years.
A close examination of the speech underscored how Obama, four months into his presidency and five years after stepping onto the national stage, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.
The country has come to know Obama as someone willing to face a skeptical audience -- a Muslim world wary of U.S. power, abortion rights opponents at the University of Notre Dame and, during the presidential campaign, voters questioning his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -- and to ask that audiences move beyond old divisions.
Obama's style has been to cast himself as ready to lead the nation past the entrenched battles of the Clinton and Bush years and to ask Americans to look beyond old fault lines and accept a new politics of pragmatism and compromise.
Now, a key test of Obama's presidency is whether he can actually find new paths across old ideological battlefields.
In some cases, as in his speech last month at Notre Dame, there were few signs that either side in the decades-long fight over abortion rights felt obliged to give ground.
On Thursday, by contrast, the discomfort of some Jewish leaders stood as a sign that Obama may be willing to accept some level of criticism from political forces at home in the course of recasting the contours of an old dispute.
Nathan Diament, public policy director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and an advisor to the White House during speech preparations, said he was struck by "some surprising word choices."
In particular, Diament was troubled that Obama shifted from his previous use of the term "Jewish state" and referred instead to a Jewish "homeland." It is a subtle distinction, but Israel advocates worry that it implies a downgrading in status.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti- Defamation League and one of America's most ardent Israel supporters, said Obama's remark that Jewish aspirations for a homeland were "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied" was incorrect and "legitimizes the Arabs who say Israel has no place there."
Foxman said that Obama's views -- among them seeing lessons for Palestinians in the struggles of oppressed blacks and others with a moral high ground -- stem from his biography. "Every individual brings his own baggage," Foxman said. "He's an African American . . . and he has rediscovered his Islamic roots after two years. I don't like it, but I understand it."
Many Jewish leaders reacted with praise for much of Obama's speech, including his assurances that U.S.-Israel ties were "unbreakable" and his call for Muslims to reject violence. But there was also a concern because Obama does not have the long public record on Middle East politics that most other national leaders have developed by the time they run for the White House.
He built his early political career, on Chicago's South Side, by courting leaders from the large African American and Arab American communities. Then, as he sought statewide and national office, he also wooed Jewish leaders.
Supporters of both Israel and the Palestinian cause thought that when it came to the Middle East, Obama was sympathetic to their side -- even though his language always showed a stalwart support for Israel. A majority of American Jews supported Obama in last year's election.
"When he was a candidate he was more careful," said Ori Nir, a spokesman for the left-leaning Americans for Peace Now. In the Cairo speech, Nir said, Obama demonstrated his true feelings, free from the constraints of a campaign.
"Now he is showing great determination and courage, knowing what is needed to lead such a momentous effort," Nir said.
Several Jewish leaders described Obama's stance toward Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. Some also complained that he did not label Hamas a terrorist group, as he had in the campaign. Instead, he used more diplomatic terms, saying that to "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations . . . Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist."
Others said they were troubled by Obama's apparent desire to be evenhanded in his descriptions of the region's history. They objected to how the president, after invoking the bloody legacy of the Holocaust and criticizing Holocaust deniers, added: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."
Said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee: "It's the search for the perfect balance that sometimes concerns me."
peter.wallsten@latimes.com
A close examination of the speech underscores how Obama, four months into his presidency, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.
By Peter Wallsten June 5, 2009 LA Times
Reporting from Washington -- As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama left some fuzzy edges to his biography. He affirmed strong support for Israel but implied a strong empathy for Palestinians. His personal story played up his introduction to the black church, leaving his father's Islamic roots in the shadows.
It was a narrative designed to ease any voter concern about Obama's background and counter false Internet rumors that he was a Muslim.
But now, with Thursday's speech in Cairo, Obama is laying bare more of his sympathies and inclinations in the volatile area of Middle East politics.
Obama spoke, for example, of Palestinian "resistance" -- a word that can cast Israel as an illegitimate occupier. He drew parallels between Palestinians and the struggles of black Americans in slavery and of black South Africans during apartheid. Both references made some allies of Israel uneasy.
Moreover, in his defense of Israel's legitimacy, Obama cited the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism, but not the belief of some Jews that their claim to the land is rooted in the Bible and reaches back thousands of years.
A close examination of the speech underscored how Obama, four months into his presidency and five years after stepping onto the national stage, is still introducing himself -- and what he stands for -- to Americans and the world.
The country has come to know Obama as someone willing to face a skeptical audience -- a Muslim world wary of U.S. power, abortion rights opponents at the University of Notre Dame and, during the presidential campaign, voters questioning his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -- and to ask that audiences move beyond old divisions.
Obama's style has been to cast himself as ready to lead the nation past the entrenched battles of the Clinton and Bush years and to ask Americans to look beyond old fault lines and accept a new politics of pragmatism and compromise.
Now, a key test of Obama's presidency is whether he can actually find new paths across old ideological battlefields.
In some cases, as in his speech last month at Notre Dame, there were few signs that either side in the decades-long fight over abortion rights felt obliged to give ground.
On Thursday, by contrast, the discomfort of some Jewish leaders stood as a sign that Obama may be willing to accept some level of criticism from political forces at home in the course of recasting the contours of an old dispute.
Nathan Diament, public policy director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and an advisor to the White House during speech preparations, said he was struck by "some surprising word choices."
In particular, Diament was troubled that Obama shifted from his previous use of the term "Jewish state" and referred instead to a Jewish "homeland." It is a subtle distinction, but Israel advocates worry that it implies a downgrading in status.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti- Defamation League and one of America's most ardent Israel supporters, said Obama's remark that Jewish aspirations for a homeland were "rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied" was incorrect and "legitimizes the Arabs who say Israel has no place there."
Foxman said that Obama's views -- among them seeing lessons for Palestinians in the struggles of oppressed blacks and others with a moral high ground -- stem from his biography. "Every individual brings his own baggage," Foxman said. "He's an African American . . . and he has rediscovered his Islamic roots after two years. I don't like it, but I understand it."
Many Jewish leaders reacted with praise for much of Obama's speech, including his assurances that U.S.-Israel ties were "unbreakable" and his call for Muslims to reject violence. But there was also a concern because Obama does not have the long public record on Middle East politics that most other national leaders have developed by the time they run for the White House.
He built his early political career, on Chicago's South Side, by courting leaders from the large African American and Arab American communities. Then, as he sought statewide and national office, he also wooed Jewish leaders.
Supporters of both Israel and the Palestinian cause thought that when it came to the Middle East, Obama was sympathetic to their side -- even though his language always showed a stalwart support for Israel. A majority of American Jews supported Obama in last year's election.
"When he was a candidate he was more careful," said Ori Nir, a spokesman for the left-leaning Americans for Peace Now. In the Cairo speech, Nir said, Obama demonstrated his true feelings, free from the constraints of a campaign.
"Now he is showing great determination and courage, knowing what is needed to lead such a momentous effort," Nir said.
Several Jewish leaders described Obama's stance toward Iran's nuclear ambitions as too soft. Some also complained that he did not label Hamas a terrorist group, as he had in the campaign. Instead, he used more diplomatic terms, saying that to "play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations . . . Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist."
Others said they were troubled by Obama's apparent desire to be evenhanded in his descriptions of the region's history. They objected to how the president, after invoking the bloody legacy of the Holocaust and criticizing Holocaust deniers, added: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."
Said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee: "It's the search for the perfect balance that sometimes concerns me."
peter.wallsten@latimes.com
Thursday, June 4, 2009
In reaction to today’s speech by President Obama in Cairo, the Government of Israel released the following statement:
The Government of Israel expresses its hope that this important speech in Cairo will indeed lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Moslem world and Israel.
We share President Obama’s hope that the American effort heralds the beginning of a new era that will bring about an end to the conflict and lead to Arab recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, living in peace and security in the Middle East.
Israel is committed to peace and will make every effort to expand the circle of peace while protecting its interests, especially its national security.
The Government of Israel expresses its hope that this important speech in Cairo will indeed lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Moslem world and Israel.
We share President Obama’s hope that the American effort heralds the beginning of a new era that will bring about an end to the conflict and lead to Arab recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, living in peace and security in the Middle East.
Israel is committed to peace and will make every effort to expand the circle of peace while protecting its interests, especially its national security.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
TIP
Twelve Ways to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons without War
From: The Israel Project, online at www.theisraelproject.org June 3, 2009
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.
1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.
2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.
3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.
4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.
5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.
6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.
7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.
8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.
9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.
10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.
11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.
12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
From: The Israel Project, online at www.theisraelproject.org June 3, 2009
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.
1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.
2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.
3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.
4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.
5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.
6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.
7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.
8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.
9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.
10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.
11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.
12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Why Isn't the Palestinian Authority Moderate?
Why don't Arab Leaders Obey the New York Times?
By Barry Rubin May 31, 2009
So dreadful was the performance of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with President Barack Obama that even the New York Times took notice. Usually, the Palestinians are exempt from any hint of the real world criteria applied to others.
But according to the May 30, Times editorial, the meeting was “a reminder of how much the Palestinians and leading Arab states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, must do to help revive foundering peace negotiations.”
The peace negotiations, of course, foundered almost a decade ago when then PA leader Yasir Arafat rejected a two-state solution, an historical fact that the Times and much of the Western political elite seems not yet to have absorbed. Indeed, it was that very fact that has led to the failure of any peace process and all the bloodshed since.
Naturally, given its peculiar view of the world, the Times cannot quite blame anyone but Israel and George W. Bush for this failure:
“We have sympathy for Mr. Abbas, the moderate-but-weak leader of the Fatah party. Israel, the Bush administration and far too many Arab leaders have failed to give him the support that he needs to make the difficult compromises necessary for any peace deal.”
This is the kind of paragraph by the way that should lead to reflection by anyone who was actually serious and not blinded by the strange brew that passes for the dominant ideology in Western intellectual circles nowadays. It is after all a set of beliefs which insists that Abbas—who wrote a doctoral dissertation denying that the Holocaust happened and prefers demanding all Palestinians can go live in Israel even if this stance prevents them from getting their own independent state—is better than Netanyahu. Abbas is branded “moderate” while Netanyahu is always called hardline.
Exactly what has Abbas done as the PA leader to be considered moderate, or at least moderate except in comparison to Hamas? If he had his way, he would make a deal with Hamas which would make him behave a lot more like Hamas rather than having Hamas become moderate.
At least, the Times added on this occasion: “That’s no excuse, however, for the depressing passivity that Mr. Abbas displayed” in calling for the United States to wait until Hamas joined his government or Netanyahu made concessions for nothing in return.
It is somewhat humorous that while Netanyahu has been unfairly and inaccurately blasted for supposedly refusing to talk with the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who openly refuse to talk to Israel.
At any rate, there's nothing funnier than a newspaper editorial writer telling a dictator that he "must" do something. But why, why is Abbas so passive? Why doesn’t Abbas do what the Times wants:
“He must keep improving those forces. He must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media. He must work harder to weed out corruption. Unless Mr. Abbas’s government does more to improve the lives of Palestinians it will surely lose again to Hamas in elections scheduled for January.”
Those elections won’t be held at all, of course, for precisely that reason. But suppose Israel gives up land and authority to Abbas, he doesn't mend his ways, and then Hamas--as the Times warns could well happen--takes over an independent state so as to wage warfare against Israel all the more effectively and on two fronts?
The Times might spare a moment to consider that possibility. Israeli leaders must do so: U.S. leaders should do so.
But the real reason Abbas doesn't obey the Times is that he likes the spewing of hatred--which conforms in part with his own views--and has nothing personally against corruption. In many future editorials, the Times will no doubt never equate such behavior with Israel's refusal to risk its existence on the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. In fact, if the newspaper were serious it would say: we know that he won't change his behavior and that's why Israel can't bet its survival on his leading a peace-loving Palestinian state at the present time.
It is also interesting that the Times views Abbas’s weakness as largely due to Israel and the previous U.S. president. The real factors include his own character, his lack of political skills, his own hardline views, his failure in making any effort to prepare his people for a compromise peace, and the radicalism of Fatah itself. Indeed, to a large degree Abbas—and his prime minister Salam Fayyad—are merely “moderate” fronts which allows Fatah to seek continued Western support and funding.
The Times analysis cries out for a simple answer to the following question as well: What could or should Israel and Bush have done to strengthen Abbas? After all, a previous view of the Times was the need to help Arafat by rushing ahead with negotiations. Then when Arafat destroyed the Camp David meeting in 2000 it was explained that this was a terrible mistake and that he needed infinite time. Does it bear any responsibility for the thousands of lives lost due to the mistaken pushing and naivete about the process in the 1990s?
The Bush administration did hurt Abbas in one way, which was to encourage relatively fair elections to be held in the Gaza Strip which Hamas won. If this is what bothers the Times, however, it should say so. Or perhaps Israel hurt Abbas by not staying in the Gaza Strip and keeping settlements there since its pullout unintentionally emboldened Hamas. One would like to see the Times explain that it is now advocating Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank, followed by a roughly similar outcome.
But the Times does hold true to the belief that the Palestinians don’t really exist. They have no ideology or goals or doctrines or views of their own. It is only Netanyahu’s “refusal…to commit to a two-state solution or halt settlement activity [which] is feeding militancy and strengthening Mr. Abbas’s Hamas rivals.”
Again, the slightest reflection on this claim would show that Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did endorse a two-state solution with the result that militancy certainly didn’t decrease and Hamas got stronger any way.
Please remember this: since all of Hamas and much of Fatah opposes a permanent two-state solution which accepts Israel's existence, the prospect of this outcome doesn't make them more quiet and moderate but rather more active and etremist in a bid to block such a solution. The same applies to Iran, Syria, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and others, including millions of Arabs and Muslims.
They are not going to say: Obama is wonderful! He's helping us get a Palestinian state. They are going to say: Obama is evil and those cooperating with him are traitors. They are giving away most of our rightful land and ensuring the survival of Israel. Let's kill those who are selling us out. Failing to understand this reality is a major and dangerous fallacy on the part of Western policymakers today.
The Times’ strategic blindness is especially visible in a passage that doesn’t quite make sense unless one takes that kind of thinking into account:
“When Mr. Obama visits Saudi Arabia and Egypt next week he must urge leaders to do more. They could help ratchet up pressure on Mr. Netanyahu with preliminary — but symbolically important — steps like opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv and holding publicly acknowledged meetings with Israeli officials.”
But how does that rachet up pressure on Netanyahu? It’s the exact opposite, as the Arab leaders understand very well. The truth is the Times refuses to say what is essential here: if Israel is going to be called on to make sacrifices, take risks, and give concessions, the Arabs have to prove their positive intentions. If Netanyahu saw such things happening, he wouldn't feel "pressured," he'd simply respond with compromises of his own.
The newspaper simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability (not to mention the fact that even if one favors a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital is West Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).
The editorial ends by saying:
“For eight years, Arab leaders and the Palestinians complained bitterly because President George W. Bush wasn’t willing to invest in Middle East peace. Now that they have an American president who is willing, they finally have to do their part.”
This is disingenuous. It is the Times--far more than Arab leaders--which has been complaining. Why didn't it have "sympathy" for Bush's obvious problem: how and why should he put the emphasis on a peace process when the Palestinians and Arab states--who supposedly are the ones desperately demanding it--won't cooperate.
Indeed, why should Obama do so now?
So here is what’s really important:
Suppose the Arab states do little or nothing, suppose the PA doesn’t stifle incitement, remains corrupt, continues to be intransigent. Will there ever come a time when the Times concludes that this isn’t working because the PA, Fatah, and most Arab states don’t want to make peace?
Will they ever write “We have sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu” (or even if there is a prime minister more to their liking by then) because he has to deal with an intransigent PA which doesn’t meet its commitments and spews hatred, Arab regimes which prefer to keep the conflict going, and radical Islamist forces hoping to have the chance to commit genocide?
Will this U.S. government do so?
Let's wait and see.
---------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Why don't Arab Leaders Obey the New York Times?
"The NY Times] simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability."
By Barry Rubin May 31, 2009
So dreadful was the performance of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with President Barack Obama that even the New York Times took notice. Usually, the Palestinians are exempt from any hint of the real world criteria applied to others.
But according to the May 30, Times editorial, the meeting was “a reminder of how much the Palestinians and leading Arab states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, must do to help revive foundering peace negotiations.”
The peace negotiations, of course, foundered almost a decade ago when then PA leader Yasir Arafat rejected a two-state solution, an historical fact that the Times and much of the Western political elite seems not yet to have absorbed. Indeed, it was that very fact that has led to the failure of any peace process and all the bloodshed since.
Naturally, given its peculiar view of the world, the Times cannot quite blame anyone but Israel and George W. Bush for this failure:
“We have sympathy for Mr. Abbas, the moderate-but-weak leader of the Fatah party. Israel, the Bush administration and far too many Arab leaders have failed to give him the support that he needs to make the difficult compromises necessary for any peace deal.”
This is the kind of paragraph by the way that should lead to reflection by anyone who was actually serious and not blinded by the strange brew that passes for the dominant ideology in Western intellectual circles nowadays. It is after all a set of beliefs which insists that Abbas—who wrote a doctoral dissertation denying that the Holocaust happened and prefers demanding all Palestinians can go live in Israel even if this stance prevents them from getting their own independent state—is better than Netanyahu. Abbas is branded “moderate” while Netanyahu is always called hardline.
Exactly what has Abbas done as the PA leader to be considered moderate, or at least moderate except in comparison to Hamas? If he had his way, he would make a deal with Hamas which would make him behave a lot more like Hamas rather than having Hamas become moderate.
At least, the Times added on this occasion: “That’s no excuse, however, for the depressing passivity that Mr. Abbas displayed” in calling for the United States to wait until Hamas joined his government or Netanyahu made concessions for nothing in return.
It is somewhat humorous that while Netanyahu has been unfairly and inaccurately blasted for supposedly refusing to talk with the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who openly refuse to talk to Israel.
At any rate, there's nothing funnier than a newspaper editorial writer telling a dictator that he "must" do something. But why, why is Abbas so passive? Why doesn’t Abbas do what the Times wants:
“He must keep improving those forces. He must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media. He must work harder to weed out corruption. Unless Mr. Abbas’s government does more to improve the lives of Palestinians it will surely lose again to Hamas in elections scheduled for January.”
Those elections won’t be held at all, of course, for precisely that reason. But suppose Israel gives up land and authority to Abbas, he doesn't mend his ways, and then Hamas--as the Times warns could well happen--takes over an independent state so as to wage warfare against Israel all the more effectively and on two fronts?
The Times might spare a moment to consider that possibility. Israeli leaders must do so: U.S. leaders should do so.
But the real reason Abbas doesn't obey the Times is that he likes the spewing of hatred--which conforms in part with his own views--and has nothing personally against corruption. In many future editorials, the Times will no doubt never equate such behavior with Israel's refusal to risk its existence on the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. In fact, if the newspaper were serious it would say: we know that he won't change his behavior and that's why Israel can't bet its survival on his leading a peace-loving Palestinian state at the present time.
It is also interesting that the Times views Abbas’s weakness as largely due to Israel and the previous U.S. president. The real factors include his own character, his lack of political skills, his own hardline views, his failure in making any effort to prepare his people for a compromise peace, and the radicalism of Fatah itself. Indeed, to a large degree Abbas—and his prime minister Salam Fayyad—are merely “moderate” fronts which allows Fatah to seek continued Western support and funding.
The Times analysis cries out for a simple answer to the following question as well: What could or should Israel and Bush have done to strengthen Abbas? After all, a previous view of the Times was the need to help Arafat by rushing ahead with negotiations. Then when Arafat destroyed the Camp David meeting in 2000 it was explained that this was a terrible mistake and that he needed infinite time. Does it bear any responsibility for the thousands of lives lost due to the mistaken pushing and naivete about the process in the 1990s?
The Bush administration did hurt Abbas in one way, which was to encourage relatively fair elections to be held in the Gaza Strip which Hamas won. If this is what bothers the Times, however, it should say so. Or perhaps Israel hurt Abbas by not staying in the Gaza Strip and keeping settlements there since its pullout unintentionally emboldened Hamas. One would like to see the Times explain that it is now advocating Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank, followed by a roughly similar outcome.
But the Times does hold true to the belief that the Palestinians don’t really exist. They have no ideology or goals or doctrines or views of their own. It is only Netanyahu’s “refusal…to commit to a two-state solution or halt settlement activity [which] is feeding militancy and strengthening Mr. Abbas’s Hamas rivals.”
Again, the slightest reflection on this claim would show that Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did endorse a two-state solution with the result that militancy certainly didn’t decrease and Hamas got stronger any way.
Please remember this: since all of Hamas and much of Fatah opposes a permanent two-state solution which accepts Israel's existence, the prospect of this outcome doesn't make them more quiet and moderate but rather more active and etremist in a bid to block such a solution. The same applies to Iran, Syria, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and others, including millions of Arabs and Muslims.
They are not going to say: Obama is wonderful! He's helping us get a Palestinian state. They are going to say: Obama is evil and those cooperating with him are traitors. They are giving away most of our rightful land and ensuring the survival of Israel. Let's kill those who are selling us out. Failing to understand this reality is a major and dangerous fallacy on the part of Western policymakers today.
The Times’ strategic blindness is especially visible in a passage that doesn’t quite make sense unless one takes that kind of thinking into account:
“When Mr. Obama visits Saudi Arabia and Egypt next week he must urge leaders to do more. They could help ratchet up pressure on Mr. Netanyahu with preliminary — but symbolically important — steps like opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv and holding publicly acknowledged meetings with Israeli officials.”
But how does that rachet up pressure on Netanyahu? It’s the exact opposite, as the Arab leaders understand very well. The truth is the Times refuses to say what is essential here: if Israel is going to be called on to make sacrifices, take risks, and give concessions, the Arabs have to prove their positive intentions. If Netanyahu saw such things happening, he wouldn't feel "pressured," he'd simply respond with compromises of his own.
The newspaper simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability (not to mention the fact that even if one favors a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital is West Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).
The editorial ends by saying:
“For eight years, Arab leaders and the Palestinians complained bitterly because President George W. Bush wasn’t willing to invest in Middle East peace. Now that they have an American president who is willing, they finally have to do their part.”
This is disingenuous. It is the Times--far more than Arab leaders--which has been complaining. Why didn't it have "sympathy" for Bush's obvious problem: how and why should he put the emphasis on a peace process when the Palestinians and Arab states--who supposedly are the ones desperately demanding it--won't cooperate.
Indeed, why should Obama do so now?
So here is what’s really important:
Suppose the Arab states do little or nothing, suppose the PA doesn’t stifle incitement, remains corrupt, continues to be intransigent. Will there ever come a time when the Times concludes that this isn’t working because the PA, Fatah, and most Arab states don’t want to make peace?
Will they ever write “We have sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu” (or even if there is a prime minister more to their liking by then) because he has to deal with an intransigent PA which doesn’t meet its commitments and spews hatred, Arab regimes which prefer to keep the conflict going, and radical Islamist forces hoping to have the chance to commit genocide?
Will this U.S. government do so?
Let's wait and see.
---------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)