Israel Matzav: Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, November 22.

1) Reconsidering the Post's editorial

Yesterday's Washington Post editorial condemning a proposed NGO law in Israel begins with:
FOR YEARS repressive governments in the Middle East have sought to curb scrutiny of their human rights records and prevent the development of organized opposition by banning civil society groups from receiving funding from foreign governments. As the Arab Spring spreads across the region, some of those controls are easing. So it is shocking to see Israel’s democratic government propose measures that could silence its own critics.
The premise here, that somehow Israel is headed in an authoritarian direction is offensive. Even if the law passes, it still has to survive court challenges. If it as badly written as its critics contend, it will never actually become law.

Furthermore, England has an extremely liberal libel law allowing even miscreants to sue, even if the information published about them is accurate. Is there anyone who accuses England of not being a democracy on account of this?

Finally what's troubling about the editorial is how it later contends that groups like Peace Now and B'Tselem would be affected and that this would be bad for Israeli democracy.

I had a hunch. I did a little digging and found an article in the Washington Post about Israeli plans to build new apartments in Jerusalem, Israel approves more building in East Jerusalem:
Hagit Ofran, a leader of Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the settlements and monitors their expansion, accused the government of “exploiting the housing crisis in Israel to promote its settlement policy,” which she said was meant to undermine prospects for a Palestinian state.
First of all Peace Now in this case is described simply as an "Israeli group." That gives them an authority to speak out about their government's actions. However what would happen if the reporter, Joel Greenberg, had, instead, described Peace Now as "a group mostly funded by European governments," would Ofran's statement have carried the same weight in this context?

Additionally, the view expressed by Peace Now is a fringe view in Israel. That's not to say that it shouldn't be heard, but should it be amplified above other opinions? Shouldn't the sole "Israeli group" cited in the article be representative of Israeli public opinion?

Furthermore, even though the apartments in question are to be built in areas that even the Palestinians concede will go to Israel in any final agreement, her charge about undermining "a Palestinian state," is left unchallenged in the article. Nor does the statement stand alone. Ofran's statement is used to bolster the arguments of the Palestinian Authority against Israel. This is more than simply an effort to correct Israel's flaws, as the Post editorial claims. Groups like Peace Now team up with Israel's enemies in efforts to delegitimize Israel. This is something that the Post's own reporting does.

In short the problem with the Washington Post's editorial is that it's premature, it's disproportionate in response to the problem and, finally, its own reporting, the Post exacerbates the problem that its editors claim doesn't exist.

Evelyn Gordon wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post, Right End, Wrong Means. It was reprinted in the Jewish Chronicle.
The only proper way to crack down on foreign funding of problematic NGOs is to ban all NGOs, without exception, from accepting money from foreign governments, or from foreign organizations funded by foreign governments. Since most foreign government money – 80 percent, according to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman – goes to “political” NGOs, such a ban would hurt very few genuine charities. The government could choose to compensate these groups by upping its own funding, but if not, this an acceptable price to pay to protect Israel from blatant foreign subversion.
Somehow I doubt that even a more carefully crafted law would satisfy the editors of the Washington Post.

2) Reconsidering Saif's plight

The other day I wrote about the capture of Saif al-Islam Qaddafi. The New York Times reported:
But while transitional government leaders in the capital, Tripoli, promised that Mr. Qaddafi would be closely guarded and turned over to the International Criminal Court to be tried on war crimes charges, leaders in Zintan insisted that they would not hand him over until a formal national government was formed — a process that is in the works but at least a day or two away.
Such insistence on factional power is at the heart of international concerns about Libya’s future. And after Colonel Qaddafi’s capture and killing at the hands of militiamen a month ago, his son’s case will be an important test of Libya’s commitment to the rule of law.
Despite the promise to turn over Saif to the ICC, it isn't at all clear why the ICC should have jurisdiction over his case, than the interim government of Libya. The UN restored Libya to its seat on UN Human Rights Council, so apparently there would be an international consensus the current government is legitimate. Of course if the new Libyan government has control, his fate is sealed.

It occurred to me that Saif's contacting the ICC was a shrewd move on his part. The ICC, in his mind, was his "get out of noose free" card. Whether or not the new Libyan government keeps its promise in regards to Saif, it shows how international law can be twisted by scoundrels for their own purposes.

3) Christians in the Middle East

By Joseph Bottum.
For all the solicitous attention paid to them by such international Christian organizations as the World Council of Churches, you would think they were a larger and more important group. Much of the Vatican's diplomacy—its occasionally adversarial relations with Israel, its Palestinian favoritism, its reluctance to condemn the Islamic dictatorships—derives from its belief that the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East are at risk, and that the best way to defend them is to be seen to side with Arabs against their perceived enemies.
Hard to say the Vatican is wrong about the first part. At the beginning of the twentieth century, large numbers of Christians still lived in their traditional Orthodox and Catholic communities, from the Holy Mountain of Mount Athos all the way around the Mediterranean—through Asia Minor, down the Levant, and across North Africa to Morocco. In 1914, they made up 25% of Ottoman Empire.
...
The second part of the Vatican's view of the Middle East, however—the idea that what is left of the Christians can be defended by trying to forge relations with Muslim extremists—has proved dangerously wrong, both as an understanding of the Christians' situation and as a strategy for helping them.