Arabs threaten Australia with trade sanctions
The Arabs are reacting the way they always do when someone doesn't see things they're way. They're acting like spoiled children whose candy was taken away by threatening Australia with
trade sanctions over its insistence on referring to 'east' Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as something other than '
occupied territory.' This is from the first link.
"We asked the government to reverse this position," Abdulhadi said of the diplomatic protest.
He threatened that trade sanctions could be put in place against Canberra if the government persisted with its stance, which he said left Australia isolated.
"It depends on the reaction of the Australian government," he said, adding that the issue could also be taken to the United Nations General Assembly. "Unfortunately I think there will be negative consequences for the (Australian) government."
Australia's export trade with the Middle East is significant, accounting for billions of dollars annually, particularly in wheat and meat, with Qatar and Jordan being major markets for live sheep.
"We want to maintain the trade and we will work very hard with them to ensure that that happens," Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss told reporters on Friday.
Abdulhadi said he would meet Foreign Minister Julie Bishop next week and was hopeful that, after being threatened, Australia could explain the decision.
"Maybe we can avoid all this sort of thing if we can have good discussions," he said.
Something tells me that Julie Bishop is quite capable of handling Mr. Abdulhadi.
Heh.
Labels: Arab honor, Arab League, Australia, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation, Organization of Islamic Countries
'Palestinians' seeking Arab League and Islamic Conference review of Australia
Former 'Palestinian' chief
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat has written a letter to the Australian government saying that the 'Palestinians' will
seek a review of relations with Australia by the Arab League and the Islamic conference.
“Palestine will request that the Arab League and the Islamic Conference
[Organization of Islamic Cooperation] review the relations of the Arab
and Islamic world with Australia in light of Australia’s unlawful
recognition of the illegal settlement regime in occupied Palestine,”
Saeb Erekat wrote in the letter, dated June 5.
...
In the letter, Erekat responded to Brandis’
statement, saying it showed that Australia “does not intend to comply
with its duty under international law not to recognize Israeli
sovereignty over any part of the Palestinian territory occupied by
Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”
He added that the term “occupation” reflects a “legal fact” based on UN resolutions.
...
In May, Australia’s ambassador to Israel, Dave
Sharma, drew fire after meeting with Housing Minister Uri Ariel in the
latter’s East Jerusalem office.
“It should be noted that diplomatic
recognition of the situation created by the attempted annexation of our
capital is a flagrant violation of international law,” Erekat wrote to
Canberra after that meeting.
Hey Saeb! If it's illegal, why don't you just take them to court? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Background
here.
Labels: Arab League, Australia, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation, Organization of Islamic Countries, Saeb Erekat
You mean we didn't do this already?
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is concerned that Israel will respond to his unilateral moves at the United nations by cutting off 'his'
tax money.
Looking ahead to possible Israeli economic sanctions, ['Palestinian Foreign Minister' Riad al-] Malki said
Tuesday that at the Arab League session, Abbas would voice concern
Israel might again withhold tax revenues it transfers to the Palestinian
Authority.
Interim peace deals task Israel with collecting taxes
and customs duties for the PA amounting to around $100 million a month,
on goods imported into the Palestinian territories. Israel has previously frozen the payments during times of heightened security and diplomatic tensions.
Now why didn't we think of that... along with cutting off their water and electricity at least until their
debts to our utilities are paid.
And watch how fast the Arab League runs the other way if anyone actually expects them to put up any money....
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, Israel Electric Corporation, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Riad al-Malki, unilateral concessions, United Nations
Arab League backs Abu Mazen's refusal to sign an end-of-conflict statement
The Arab League has issued a statement backing the refusal of '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The Arab League announced on Wednesday a full backing of a
Palestinian refusal to meet Israel's demand to be recognized as a Jewish
state, a condition Jerusalem says it required for peace.
"We
express our total rejection of the call to consider Israel as a Jewish
state," read a statement from the final day of the Arab summit in
Kuwait.
...
Palestinians fear the label would lead to discrimination against
Israel's sizable Arab minority, while Israelis say it recognizes Jewish
history and rights on the land.
What's really behind this question is that the 'Palestinians' refuse to say that giving them a
Judenrein (free of Jews) 'Palestinian state' while leaving Israel with over a million 'Israeli Arabs' will not be the end of the conflict. In other words, the 'Palestinians' reject the entire premise of a 'two-state solution' which is that the establishment of a 'Palestinian state' (dividing the land for a second time) will spell the end of the conflict.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, Israel is a Jewish state, two-state solution
What a relief....
What a relief... The United States says that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is
NOT trying to convince the Arab League to endorse the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. I was SO worried about that possibility....
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, at her daily press briefing
Wednesday afternoon in Washington, denied reports that Kerry was pressing the
kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia to alter the Arab League peace
initiative.
Kerry met the kings of both countries on Sunday, and is
scheduled to meet in Paris in the coming days with representatives of the Arab
League’s Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee to update them on the
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as part of his continued efforts to drum up
wide Arab support for the negotiations.
“It would not be accurate to say
there was an attempt to change the Arab Peace Initiative,” Psaki
said.
Despite persistent questioning on the matter, Psaki would not say
whether the US would like to see a change on this matter in the Arab league
plan.
When asked whether the US wanted to see the Arab world recognize
Israel as a Jewish state, she replied, “We want to see them support, which
they’ve indicated they would, a final-status agreement between the parties. What
is included in there is not yet determined.”
Psaki would not address the
issues of whether the US was pressuring the Palestinians to recognize Israel as
a Jewish state.
Kerry might be back here next week. But if he does come back, you can bet that he won't be looking for any 'Palestinian' or other Arab concessions.
Labels: Arab League, Israel is a Jewish state, John Kerry, Saudi plan
Arab League rejects Kerry security plan too
At a hastily called meeting at the request of '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen,
the Arab League has rejected US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'security plan,' which would leave Israeli troops in place in the Jordan Valley.
At an emergency meeting called at the request of Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday, Arab League Secretary General Nabil
Elaraby said there could be not one Israeli soldier in the territory of
a future Palestine.
But a resolution he read at the end of the
meeting did not repeat the harshly critical language of a report
circulated to the Arab delegates ahead of the gathering.
The
report, seen by Reuters, said the US security proposals "achieved
Israeli security expansionist demands, and guaranteed (Israel's)
continued control of (the Jordan Valley) on the security pretext."
It also described them as "an American retreat."
But 'peace' is at hand....
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, John Kerry, Jordan Valley
Sorry Herb, it's not the Arab League's lack of clout (but you knew that)
Here's an instance where the headline writer got it wrong. The headline gives the impression that Herb Keinon is arguing in the JPost that what's holding '
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen back from opening talks with Israel is the
Arab League's lack of clout. But Herb actually has it almost right. The issue here isn't that the Arab League lacks clout - it's that 20 years after Oslo the 'Palestinian street' is as uninterested in real peace as ever.
On Wednesday, the Arab League representatives gave
full-throated backing to Kerry’s efforts.
“The Arab delegates believe
Kerry’s ideas proposed to the committee today constitute a good ground and
suitable environment for restarting the negotiations, especially the new and
important political, economic and security elements,” they said in a statement
from Amman.
With this green light, many assumed, the road was paved for
Abbas to give a resounding yes. But those who assumed that the Palestinians
would jump on Kerry’s offer once the Arab League gave its blessing misread the
mood on the Palestinian street.
There, where the Arab League has
disappointed time and time again, not a whole lot of stock is placed in what the
foreign ministers of countries that have not delivered for them really
think.
The PLO’s failure to grasp the Kerry offer is the Palestinian
leadership responding to its grassroots, and the message filtering up from the
grassroots is that time is on their side, more can be extracted from Israel and
why enter into negotiations with a man they genuinely dislike and do not trust:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Kerry thought that the Arab League
backing would impress the Palestinians. But this backing from countries on the
ropes like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen impressed no one. It
simply does not matter.
The Palestinians will do what they want, and what
they want is to continue their struggle because of a sense that time and world
opinion – as evidenced by the current brouhaha over the new EU settlement
guidelines – is on their side and will eventually wear Israel down until it
gives them what they want.
If Abu Mazen were a real leader with real clout, perhaps he could open talks and could lead his 'people' in the direction of peace. But Abu Mazen is all about preserving Abu Mazen in power, and he has as little interest in peace as his putative 'people.' Unfortunately, there is no 'Palestinian leader' on the horizon who would be more willing than Abu Mazen to live in peace with Israel.
Actually, my impression is that a large percentage of the 'Palestinian people' - certainly those who live in 'east' Jerusalem and those who hold jobs in Jewish establishments in Judea and Samaria - actually like the current situation. They get all the economic positives from Israel while holding out hope for an eventual 'Palestinian state' that they would probably
try to escape anyway.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, John Kerry, Palestinian people, real 'Palestinians'
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, May 2.
1) Might? May?
In March, a report from the UN suggested very strongly that Omar Masharawi (or Mishrawi) was killed by a Hamas rocket.
In response, Robert Mackey of the New York Times wrote "might have been caused by 'a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.'"
Mackey's counterpart at the Washington Post, Max Fisher wrote, "... Omar Mishrawi may actually have been killed by a Hamas rocket."
(Emphases mine.)
Now, Elder of Ziyon quoting Electronic Intifada should put the end to all such equivocation.
The UN fact-finding mission’s conclusions were largely based on
Al-Mezan’s fieldwork, though this is not mentioned in its report,
Suliman said. Suliman explained to me that Al-Mezan’s fieldworker
visited the Masharawi home in the wake of the strike and conducted
interviews with people in the area. Its findings at the time were that
baby Omar was most likely killed as a result of a Palestinian-fired
rocket.
Al Mezan’s findings are based on the type of damage caused to the family
home, which it says is not characteristic of an Israeli F-16, Apache
helicopter or drone strike. Meanwhile, Palestinian armed groups were
firing rockets towards Israel half a kilometer from the Masharawi home
and Israeli strikes were targeting the sites of the rocket-launchers at
the time of the incident, he said.
Elder of Ziyon comments:
Of course, Al Mezan (and EI) then try to spin this incident into saying
that baby Omar's death is really Israel's fault anyway using their usual
tortured logic and sickening spin to absolve terrorist rockets in
civilian neighborhoods. They ignore that Omar was not the only child
killed by Hamas rockets that was publicly and loudly blamed on Israel.
When looking at actual facts, however, it is increasingly clear that I
was right and the BBC was wrong - and that the BBC has been purposefully
shading the truth about this case for the past five months. So has
Human Rights Watch and other media and organizations that are
reflexively anti-Israel whenever possible, even though the evidence on
the ground from OCHA-OPT as early as late November indicated that Hamas
rockets killed civilians in Gaza including Omar.
Which brings me back to Max Fisher. Fisher quoted Paul Danahar, the BBC's Middle East Bureau Chief.
“We’re all one team in Gaza,” Danahar told me, saying that Misharawi is a
BBC video and photo editor. After spending a “few hours” with his
grieving colleague, he wrote on Twitter, ”Questioned asked here is: if
Israel can kill a man riding on a moving motorbike (as they did last
month) how did Jihad’s son get killed.”
Now we know that the BBC "team" was involved in promoting a falsehood.
Will Mackey (who is oh so fond of quoting Electronic Intifada) or Fisher
acknowledge that they were played by BBC? Will Margaret Sullivan, the
public editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post's newly
minted reader representative, Doug Feaver examine how their own
reporters and bloggers were duped by this willful deception?
2) How do you say "illegal settlement" in French?
Eugene Kontorovich reports on an extraordinary court case in France, Landmark French Ruling on West Bank Construction and International Law. Kontorovich concludes:
Israel’s critics have long claimed that “everyone agrees” that all
“settlements” (a term referring to all Israeli activity in the West
Bank, at least that benefits Jews) clearly violates international law,
and that only Israeli apologists could believe the arguments to the
contrary. I assume the Versailles Court of Appeals won’t be accused of
being unduly sympathetic to the Jewish State.
Indeed, many might share my surprise on such a decision coming from a
European court, especially given the supposed uniformity of views on the
underlying legal issues. Perhaps two factors may explain the surprising
decision: this is not an international court, but an ordinary municipal
one, and it was an important French industrial concern, rather than
Israel, in the dock. International lawyers may have what could
positively be described as professional or scientific knowledge of the
matter, or more cynically as guild orthodoxy. Judges unversed in these
verities might see things differently. And of course, here international
law is being used against important and powerful domestic interests.
3) The API. Again
The AP reports Arab League sweetens Israel-Palestinian peace plan:
The original 2002 Arab peace initiative offered Israel peace with the
entire Arab and Muslim world in exchange for a "complete withdrawal"
from territories captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians
claim the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, all seized by
Israel in 1967, for their future state.
The initiative was revolutionary when it was introduced by Saudi
Arabia's then crown prince, King Abdullah, and endorsed by the 22-member
Arab League. The 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation later
endorsed the plan as well. However, it was overshadowed by fierce
Israeli-Palestinian fighting at the time and greeted with skepticism by
Israel.
In Washington Monday, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al
Thani tried to allay some of the Israeli concerns. Speaking on behalf of
an Arab League delegation, he reiterated the need to base an agreement
between Israel and a future Palestine on the 1967 lines, but for the
first time, he cited the possibility of "comparable," mutually agreed
and "minor" land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Barry Rubin cautions in Why the ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ Is Both a Good Thing and a Scam:
Then there is the list of countries involved. I have no difficulty in
believing that the governments of Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are
ready for a deal. Jordan has already made peace; Saudi Arabia proposed a
reasonable offer a decade ago (before it was sharply revised by
hardliners before becoming an official Arab League position), and
Bahrain’s regime is desperately afraid of Iran and has become a
semi-satellite of the Saudis.
But what about the other three countries? Are we to believe that the
Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the Hizballah-dominated regime in
Lebanon, and the quirky but pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood regime
in Qatar have suddenly reversed everything that they have been saying in
order to seek a compromise peace with Israel? Highly doubtful to say
the least.
In other words, the reportage ignored the interesting detail about the
three most radical regimes (Qatar’s regional policy is radical; not its
domestic policies) suddenly making a concession to Israel that had been
previously unthinkable? It’s sort of like taking for granted, say,
Joseph Stalin’s supposed embrace of capitalism or France’s rulers
proclaiming that American culture is far superior to their own.
In a lengthy analysis of the original initiative, Joshua Teitelbaum wrote (.pdf):
Several aspects of the Arab Peace Initiative represent significant and
positive developments in the official, collective Arab view of the
future of Israel in the Middle East. However, Israel should refrain from
accepting the initiative as a basis for peace negotiations because it
contains seriously objectionable elements. Israel should also reject the
“all or nothing” approach of the Saudis and the Arab League.
Peacemaking is the process of negotiation, not diktat.
Nothing in the current reporting suggests that this aspect of the initiative has changed.
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, Arab League, France, Hamas rockets, Middle East Media Sampler, Operation Pillar of Defense, settlements are legal, Soccer Dad
Jewish Home can be replaced?
Labor's Shelly Yacimovitch says that her party will
join the coalition to keep the government afloat in the event that Jewish Home leaves the coalition over 'peace talks.'
Opposition leader Shelly Yacimovich (Labor) said Tuesday night that her
party will "support positive, significant steps toward reaching an
agreement."
"If we are on the cusp of singing a treaty and [Economic and Trade
Minister Naftali] Bennett threatens to quit, we won't be the opposition,
and will reexamine entering the government," a spokeswoman for
Yacimovich explained Wednesday.
Labor responded enthusiastically
to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani's announcement
in Washington that the Arab League would be willing to deviate from
pre-1967 lines. Nearly all of the party's MKs released statements
welcoming the change.
Netanyahu may not need the support anyway. Drunk on power, Bennett and Jewish Home are already looking for ways to stay in the government even if it makes concessions to the 'Palestinians.'
A senior Bayit Yehudi source explained that, the Bayit Yehudi doesn't
oppose negotiations, but is against the government giving up any
territory.
However, if such concessions are authorized in a referendum, the party will accept the will of the people, the source said.
Bennett
hopes to turn the current law, requiring a referendum before conceding
any land under Israeli sovereignty, in to a basic law, which has
constitutional status. He has been met with opposition from within the
coalition, as Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and her party are adamantly
against a referendum, and Yesh Atid is undecided.
The current law
does not include Judea and Samaria, which is not under Israeli
sovereignty, and the Bayit Yehudi is trying to find a legal solution for
them to be part of new legislation.
The Bayit Yehudi doesn't
oppose negotiations, faction chairwoman Ayelet Shaked said on Tuesday,
as long as there is a “give and take, not give and give.”
“There’s
nothing new [in the Arab League announcement. Former prime minister
Ehud] Olmert and [former US president Bill] Clinton talked about this.
No one thinks that 400,000 people can be removed from their homes,” she
said.
Meanwhile, one of the few MK's with integrity has already announced in a letter to his party colleagues that although he is a member of the Likud,
he will not cooperate with the coalition.
This Sunday, the 18th of Iyar, the Commander of the David Region called me and told me that by “direct instruction from the Prime Minister,” I would not be allowed to ascend to the Temple Mount the following morning.
At this point, the final mask has been lifted. I could no longer evade the issue and blame lower level officials. Nobody attempted to claim that there was a local security problem. After all, I was notified the day before my planned ascent, when the Mount was completely quiet. The situation became crystal clear: The Moslem wakf terrorizes Israel’s government, decides which MKs will ascend the Mount and which will not – and it is none other than the Prime Minister who implements their directives.
This is not a personal issue. Today, the police informed the Knesset Interior Committee that was scheduled to tour the Temple Mount next Tuesday, the 27th of Iyar, Jerusalem Day Eve, that it will not be able to visit on that day or any other day – due to the wakf’s objections. Whoever represents the sovereignty of the State of Israel in the eyes of the sovereign on the Mount – the wakf, is not allowed to visit there. Once again, the wakf demand is implemented by the government of Israel.
I do not have to explain the severe significance of these events to the Knesset Members of the National Movement. All the red lines of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem have been trampled and breached. This is in addition to the infringement of the law inherent in these decisions, the violation of the Jerusalem Basic Law and other Basic Laws. These decisions make a mockery of the immunity and sovereignty afforded to Israel’s Knesset Members. We are facing a new reality that obligates us all to act in an unconventional manner.
I would like to make it clear that the last thing that I want is to find myself in a conflict with the Prime Minister, who I highly respect and am careful to honor. I clearly have nothing to gain from that. Clearly, I do not wish to create difficulties for the rest of the members of the faction. Just the opposite: When I was elected to the Knesset I made no demands. I was happy to accept the duties and tasks that were offered me and I believe that it was obvious to all that I have put every effort into giving the maximum for our common goals.
But what is all my work in the Knesset worth if the Knesset, as it turns out, surrenders Israel’s sovereignty in the heart of Jerusalem?
Who is the sovereign in Jerusalem when the Moslem wakf determines which Knesset Member is allowed or not allowed to ascend to the most holy of places – to the Temple Mount? Who exactly are we fooling? Have we forgotten our vow, “If I forget thee, Jerusalem, may my right hand be forgotten”? What is this vow worth if we ignore the terrible reality in which the wakf dictates to Israel’s government what to do on the Mount, in defiance of the law?
If we could have deceived ourselves until now that we are the sovereign and the wakf acts as an extension of our sovereignty, it has now become clear that it is the government of Israel that acts as an extension of the wakf. We are paving the way for them to rule the entire Land, as the poet of the National Movement, Uri Tzvi Greenberg, warned: “He who rules the Mount rules the Land.”
A red line has been crossed. It was forced upon me with no chance for discussion and does not allow me (and in my opinion, does not allow you, either) to continue to conduct “business as usual.” How can I face myself if, for the good of my political future, I will abandon the Temple Mount?
With a heavy heart and totally converse to my original intent, I am forced to suspend all my regular parliamentary activity. I know that we have just begun this Knesset term and we all have goals and ambitions to accomplish as much as possible. But there are moments in life when one must put everything aside and act according to his conscience. The Temple Mount, the rock of our existence, is calling us. This is the moment.
Respectfully,
Moshe Feiglin
Naftali Bennett and Co. have an awful lot to learn from Feiglin.
Labels: Arab League, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli Knesset, Jewish Home party, Labor party, Moshe Feiglin, Naftali Bennett, Temple Mount, two-state solution
'Moderate' Abu Bluff accuses Israel of 'judaizing' Jerusalem
Moadim l'Simcha, a happy holiday to all of you. I wanted to remind you that because I am an Israeli in Israel, I am allowed to be on the internet tonight without violating the holiday rules. We have no second seder tonight.
In a speech to an Arab League meeting in Qatar on Tuesday, '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen accused Israel of '
Judaizing' Jerusalem.
“The Israeli occupation is systematically and continuously working
toward Judaizing east Jerusalem,” Abbas told the Arab heads of state.
He
said that Israel was also seeking to change the character of the city
and expel it Palestinian residents and assault Islamic and Christian
holy sites.
Abbas urged the Arabs and Muslims to go to the United
Nations and other international organizations to stop Israel from
pursuing its “destructive scheme.”
Abbas also sought the help of
the Arab and Islamic countries in putting pressure on Israel to release
Palestinian prisoners, whom he described as “brave.”
He claimed that the prisoners were being subjected to “grave violations.”
Abbas hailed Qatar’s announcement that it would establish a special fund for Jerusalem with a $1 billion budget to support the Arab residents of the city and foil Israel’s attempts to “Judaize” east Jerusalem.
I don't know how we could possibly more 'Judaize' a city that has been the capital of the Jewish people for more than 3,000 years.
But as it happens, under Israeli control, all of the religions have access to their major holy sites, something that was not the case when the Arab Muslims controlled Jerusalem from 1948-67.
Moreover, given the declining Christian population in the 'Palestinian Authority' since it gained control of certain territory in 1994, the complaint about Christian holy sites is nothing but gall.
And as to Abu Bluff's brave
prisoners murderers....
“We reiterated to Obama our commitment to the two-state solution on the
basis of the 1967 borders and the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002,” Abbas
said. “We also emphasized that halting settlement construction and
releasing Palestinian prisoners were not Palestinian pre-conditions, but
Israeli obligations in accordance with signed agreements and the Road
Map.”
Except that they aren't in any signed agreement, nor were they part of the road map until other conditions were fulfilled.
Looks like there won't be any negotiations after all....
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, Barack Hussein Obama, East Jerusalem, Judaization, negotiations without preconditions, Qatar, road map, settlement freeze
US intelligence: Syria could activate chem weapons in less than two hours
Getting to this point was brilliant, just brilliant. The New York Times is reporting that in late November and early December,
Syria mixed chemical weapons, which it still retains. The US was informed about this by - who else - Israeli intelligence, and a combination of the US, Russia, the Arab countries and the EU got Assad to back off. But Assad retains the weapons. The German intelligence agency believes they're deliverable in 4-6 hours, but US intelligence takes that time down to less than two hours.
So now, the same group is debating whether to destroy the Syrian air force, thereby taking away Assad's ability to deliver the weapons. The result might be that the war in Syria ends, the weapons fall into the hands of the Islamic 'rebels' from which they are either fired into Israel, or shipped to Hezbullah to lob them over their border into Israel. Brilliant. Just brilliant (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
But the scare a month ago has renewed debate about whether the West
should help the Syrian opposition destroy Mr. Assad’s air force, which
he would need to deliver those 500-pound bombs.
The chemical munitions are still in storage areas that are near or on
Syrian air bases, ready for deployment on short notice, officials said.
The Obama administration and other governments have said little in
public about the chemical weapons movements, in part because of concern
about compromising sources of intelligence about the activities of Mr.
Assad’s forces. This account is based on interviews with more than half a
dozen military, intelligence and diplomatic officials, all of whom
spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the intelligence matters
involved.
The head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, warned in a
confidential assessment last month that the weapons could now be
deployed four to six hours after orders were issued, and that Mr. Assad
had a special adviser at his side who oversaw control of the weapons,
the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel
reported. Some American and other allied officials, however, said in
interviews that the sarin-laden bombs could be loaded on planes and
airborne in less than two hours.
“Let’s just say right now, it would be a relatively easy thing to load
this quickly onto aircraft,” said one Western diplomat.
How the United States and Israel, along with Arab states, would respond
remains a mystery. American and allied officials have talked vaguely of
having developed “contingency plans” in case they decided to intervene
in an effort to neutralize the chemical weapons, a task that the
Pentagon estimates would require upward of 75,000 troops. But there have
been no evident signs of preparations for any such effort.
The United States military has quietly sent a task force of more than
150 planners and other specialists to Jordan to help the armed forces
there, among other things, prepare for the possibility that Syria will
lose control of its chemical weapons.
Israel’s prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu,
was reported to have traveled to Jordan in recent weeks, and the
Israeli news media have said the topic of discussion was how to deal
with Syrian weapons if it appeared that they could be transferred to
Lebanon, where Hezbollah could lob them over the border to Israel. But
the plans, to the extent they exist, remain secret.
Remember the bad old days when that cowboy George W. Bush would have taken action without 'consulting' with the Russians, Europeans and Arab countries until we got to the point where there was real danger to us? Aren't you glad that now we have Obama who leads from behind? What could go wrong?
Labels: Arab League, Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, Europe, Russia, Syrian uprising
PLO accuses US of 'forcing' Arab foreign ministers not to visit
The Secretary General of the Arab League Nabil Elaraby, and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr visited '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen in the Mukhata in Ramallah on Saturday. But the big news is who wasn't there. Four other Arab foreign ministers allegedly canceled their trips at the last minute, and the PLO is claiming that it was
due to pressure by the United States.
PLO executive member Wasel Abu Yusef told reporters that the US
Administration was behind the cancellation of the four Arab ministers'
visit to the West Bank.
"The Americans prevented the Arab foreign ministers from visiting Ramallah," Abu Yusef charged.
Some
of the ministers who called off their visit claimed that they did not
want to pass through IDF checkpoints on their way to Ramallah.
But
Elaraby and the Egyptian foreign minister arrived in Ramallah aboard a
Jordanian helicopter, which landed in the Mukata presidential compound.
Abu
Yusef and other Palestinian officials also accused the US of exerting
pressure on the Arab countries not to provide the Palestinians with
financial aid.
"The US and Israel are imposing an economic
blockade on the Palestinian State and are preventing the Arab countries
and Western donors from providing Palestinians with financial aid," he
added.
"Unfortunately, these countries have succumbed to the
pressure, further intensifying the financial crisis in the Palestinian
Authority."
If only this were true.... Can you see Hussein Obama doing anything to punish the poor 'Palestinians'?
Meanwhile, at the meeting, Abu Mazen complained that the Arab League has not been putting up its $100 million per month to pay the
terrorists' salaries. Someone ought to tell him to stop schnorring and go develop an economy.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Arab League, compensation for terrorists, Nabil Elaraby
Three words: Target rich environment
Three words on this one:
Target rich environment.
Will Hamas attack Israel while the Arab League delegation visits? Of course they will. Will Israel hold its fire? Unfortunately, short of a direct hit with a lot of dead and injured, probably yes. And that's why visits like this one will continue to take place: Because everyone knows that they're essentially risk-free.
I just hope they let 'Palestinian' foreign minister Riyad Malki in.
By the way, when was the last Arab League delegation to Syria?
Labels: Arab League, Gaza, Hamas, Nabil Elaraby, Operation Pillar of Defense, Riyad al-Malki
Great job Barack! Iraq rejects Arab League call for Assad to go
Barack Hussein Obama did a great job of getting US troops out of Iraq, didn't he? In fact, he was in such a rush to get them out that the people he left in charge have now
rejected an Arab League (!) call to terminate Bashar al-Assad's rule in Syria.
Iraq on Monday rejected an Arab League call for embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad to swiftly give up power, describing it as interfering in Damascus's sovereignty.
"This call is not appropriate at this time because it is interfering in the sovereignty of another country," Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi told Agence France Presse. "There are other means to secure a peaceful transition of authority."
In a joint statement issued early Monday after their meeting in Doha, Arab League foreign ministers called on Assad to "renounce power," promising that he and his family would be offered "a safe exit".
"There is agreement on the need for the rapid resignation of President Bashar Assad," Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani told journalists after the Arab League meeting wound up in the small hours Monday.
Looks like Iraq was sure ready for democracy, doesn't it?
Labels: Arab League, Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Iraq, Syria
Arab League offers Assad 'safe exit'
The Arab League has offered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a 'safe exit,'
but only if he resigns 'soon.'
The Arab League will offer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “a safe exit” if he resigns quickly and leaves the country, a senior Arab League official said, marking the latest attempt to get Syria’s longtime ruler to step down and end more than a year of daily bloodshed.
The official provided no further details because the source is not authorized to speak to the media.
Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani did not discuss an exit plan when speaking with reporters after the Sunday meeting, but confirmed “there is an agreement on the need for the swift resignation” of Assad.
“We call on the opposition and the Free Syrian Army to form a government of national unity,” Sheikh Hamad said.
Despite Arab League offer, the brutal violence didn’t let up.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arab League, Bashar al-Assad, Syrian uprising
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, July 8.
1) No order for the court
There a front page story in the New York Times, Arab Uprisings Point Up Flaws in Global Court, that makes some legitimate points. However, the closer one looks the bias of the article becomes clearer. After noting that the former President of Yemen, Saleh evaded prosecution of the court the article continues:
Now, as the world confronts increasing evidence of atrocities on a much vaster scale in Syria as President Bashar al-Assad’s government battles a growing rebellion, there are signs that Mr. Assad is likely to evade prosecution, much as Mr. Saleh has.
The men have not been prosecuted because they have powerful allies, underlining what critics say are crucial flaws in the court’s setup. That now threatens to undermine the still-fragile international consensus that formed the basis for the court’s creation in 2002: that leaders should be held accountable for crimes against their own people.
Already, the failure to act against some leaders challenged by the Arab Spring is emboldening critics who see the court as just another manifestation of a deeply undemocratic international order. So-called justice, they say, is reserved for outcast leaders, including an assortment of African officials from weak states with few powerful patrons.
Later the article observes:
The International Criminal Court began working a decade ago with very low expectations and little support from the major world powers. Three of the five veto-holding members of the Security Council — the United States, Russia and China — refused to subject themselves to its jurisdiction. Despite this, it has turned into a touchstone for justice-seekers so powerful that The Hague has become their desired destination for autocrats everywhere. The Security Council allowed the court to investigate Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who ended up being indicted on charges of war crimes in Darfur, though the court has been unable to apprehend him.
...
But the court has not taken action in any other Arab uprising, in no small part because of the ties between the countries involved and veto-holding members of the Security Council. Bahrain and Yemen are allies of the United States, which is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Russia and China, neither of which is a signatory, are close to Syria’s government, and are likely to block any attempt to refer a case to the court.
Note the blame assigned to the United States, Russia and China. However, why hasn't the indictment of Bashir led to any further action. At the time the warrant for the arrest of Bashir was announced, he was hosted at an Arab League summit. The Washington Post observed at the time:
So it was interesting to see what else was in the latest statement issued by the kings, princes and authoritarian presidents of the Middle East and North Africa. First there was a call on "the international community to prosecute those responsible" for alleged "war crimes" committed by Israel in its recent offensive in Gaza. Then came an ardent defense of Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir -- who was welcomed to the Doha summit despite an outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on multiple war crimes charges.
"We stress our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the decision" of the ICC, said the communique, which Mr. Bashir welcomed in a bombastic address to the summit plenary. Leader after leader declared fealty. "We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir," said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Abbas is hoping that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to stop building "illegal" settlements in the West Bank; the next time he utters the phrase "double standard" in the presence of a U.S. diplomat, we suggest a query about Mr. Bashir.
There's no word in the New York Times article about the Arab League (or OIC) rejection of the ICC's authority in this case.
But other situations have escaped the court’s reach. At the bloody end of the civil war in Sri Lanka in 2009, 200,000 civilians were trapped on a beach between government forces and the Tamil Tigers. Tens of thousands are believed to have been killed, but the International Criminal Court has never investigated the case. Sri Lanka is a close ally of China. Charges of crimes in Gaza will never be investigated, international justice experts say, because of the ties between the United States and Israel.
Aside from the offensive comparison of Israel to Sri Lanka in this paragraph, there's no acknowledgment that the charges against Israel were inflated if not inaccurate, even though the charges came from the same groups that still protect Bashir!
According to this article the only countries who help international criminals escape justice are those who have vetoes at the UN. No responsibility is assigned to the Arab League. The article also doesn't mention that the court has no mechanism for preventing unjust prosecutions if enough tyrannies band to together to insist on an investigation.
2) Of the Presbyterian General Assembly and wheel chair tours
Dexter Van Zile reported on the repeated efforts of BDS proponents to push a divestment resolution through the Presbyterian Church General Assembly last week. In the end, fortunately:
The scheduled deliberations regarding Middle East-related overtures have come to an end at the PC (USA)’s General Assembly in Pittsburgh. The assembly approved a overture calling for an end to violence in Syria by a wide margin. Among other things, the overture called on the United States to “refrain from military intervention in Syria.” It is highly unlikely the General Assembly will revisit any of the issues related to the Middle East between now and the final gavel, which will fall tomorrow morning. Divestment is dead, for now, in the PC (USA).
On a more positive note, an author, Bonnie Guzelf put together a tour group of Israel who required assistance. (h/t O. J. Brigance, who works in the Balitmore Ravens front office) Guzelf wrote in a newsletter dedicated to sufferers of ALS:
Accessibility also varied among the tourist sites we visited, but generally was pretty good. The Israeli government is trying very hard to make things accessible for people with disabilities without destroying the ancient sites they came to see.
Our first stop was Caesarea National Park, where you can see the port built by King Herod and the place where Paul set sail to preach to communities around the Mediterranean. This was very accessible. Then north to the town of Nazareth, a large, thriving tourist city, we had to go up a steep hill to get to the Church of the Annunciation, which is built over the place where Mary is said to have been visited and told she would bear a child. Unfortunately, there were no cut-out ramps, the road was a bit bumpy, and we had to take our chairs up the narrow street with cars coming down the other way.
While a politicized Christian group sat in judgment of Israel, others found Israel to be supportive of their needs.
3) Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
There may be an alternative motive for Al Jazeera's program absurdly charging Israel with poisoning Yasser Arafat: for some reason Al Jazeera is making an effort to rehabilitate Arafat's image. It's true that many in the media don't consider Arafat to be a villain, but, at worst, an ambiguous figure. (See TimesWatch for some examples.)
Al Jazeera featured a couple of companion pieces to the main "Arafat poisoned" article. One was an interview with former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami:
Again, in my interpretation of things, Sheikh Yassin was the leader of a movement that was at the time producing havoc among Israelis, whether a thousand Israelis killed -- no, a thousand, was it? Or throughout the Second Intifada, and therefore, you were getting rid of a leader that was sending directly or indirectly, or inspiring people, or giving legitimacy to this mass campaign of suicide terrorism. That was the way that one could understand it.
But Arafat was somebody that was negotiating with you. He was negotiating. He was the one that if you give a sober interpretation of his role throughout the last 20 years, you would see that he was the man with whom you need to have a kind of peace deal; otherwise, there is not going to be any kind of deal. So I draw a line between the way Israel fought leaders of Hamas during the Second Intifada and the person of Arafat.
Yes, but all this does not necessarily lead to a physical assassination. They were trying to diminish his political clout, his political influence. And I saw it also as a way -- frankly, again, to me, it remains to be proved that Israel got rid physically of Arafat. I saw this campaign to appoint the prime minister, et cetera as part of the reforms that Israel and others were seeing as a prerequisite for a viable peace process. And frankly, I always saw that this was one shortcoming of the Palestinian National Movement. This is where Zionism had the upper hand.
What was Ben Ami thinking? True, he rejects the charge that Israel killed Arafat physically. But he seemingly is accepting the notion that Israel (unjustly) killed Arafat politically. No doubt Al Jazeera's viewers appreciate the subtlety of Ben Ami's distinction. Still we have a former high ranking Israeli government official saying that Arafat was sincere and unfairly demonized.
Another companion report was an interview with Mohammed Rashid.
Last time when I saw Sharon, it was -- there was an attack in Netanya. It was a big attack. It caused some 31 Israeli victims. I was on the way to the meeting, and I thought it is just wise to call it off and go back. I spoke to Omri Sharon, and he told me, “No. The prime minister waiting for you. Keep going.” And almost five hours meeting with him, uh, he was avoiding touching on the, on the event. In the last half an hour, I told him, “Mr. Prime Minister, we have to find a solution to stop attacks like these, more attacks like this in the future, and more reactions from the Israeli side on the Palestinians.” Then he told me, “I wasn’t willing to discuss this issue with you, but let me tell you. Tell your boss, next time it will be really tough. And I’m not sure there will be, after the next time, there will be any more time. So I’m fed up with this. This should stop. I hold him personally responsible, and I want, I want him -- let him do what he likes to do, but I want a responsible prime minister to work with me; otherwise, there is nothing, nothing will move.”
So for, for me, this was more than political threat, and especially the tanks were getting closer to Arafat’s bedroom. I, I don’t think there was more than five meters’ distance between the tanks and his bedroom. So it was obvious another attack could lead to catastrophe, even a direct physical catastrophe. But it was obvious, time is ticking and Arafat’s days becoming really short and short. I would say the decision had been made in 2002 to get rid of him, politically and physically.
Rashid, just a few weeks ago, was convicted in absentia of embezzling millions from the Palestinian Authority. Now Al Jazeera is rehabilitating him, apparently at the expense of Mahmoud Abbas, allowing Rashid to appear as a defender of Arafat's legacy. What is Al Jazeera's agenda here? And why are so many lending uncritical support to Al Jazeera?
Labels: al-Jazeera, Ali Abdullah Saleh, Arab League, Bashar al-Assad, BDS, Christians, International Criminal Court, Middle East Media Sampler, Omar al-Bashir, Soccer Dad, Sudan, Syria, Yasser Arafat, Yemen
Iran admits that it's helping 'defend' Assad
Iran confirmed on Sunday that
it has troops in Syria helping embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad. The admission came a day after Assad's troops killed over 100 people in the town of Hula, including 'tens' of children.
"If the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of civilians would have been twice as bad," General Ismail Qa'ani, deputy-commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, told Tehran's ISNA news agency.
Iran, he added, "Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people."
This was a rare admission by an Iranian official that Tehran was truly aiding the Damascus regime.
The quote was later removed from ISNA's website.
Sunday's statement was particularly strident, as it followed the brutal killing of 92 people, including 32 children, in Houla, in the embattled province of Homs, by Damascus' forces.
Syria has denied that its troops were behind the massacre.
Meanwhile, Syria has denied permission for former 'Palestinian' foreign minister Nasser al-Kidwa to accompany former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on a mission to Damascus. Annan is the Arab League's envoy to Syria and al-Kidwa is his deputy. I wonder how much Arabic Annan speaks....
In any event, it appears to me that Ahmadinejad is worried that Hamas and Hezbullah are not going to take the hit for him in the event that he attacks Israel, and that they will try to stay out of the retaliation. Assad is much more reliable. Iran's support for Assad is the quid pro quo for participating in any retaliation against Israel, delivered in advance.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Arab League, Bashar al-Assad, Kofi Annan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nasser al-Qudwa, Syrian uprising
Dispensing with American leadership
Jennifer Dyer argues that Saturday's Russian and Chinese vetoes of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria's Bashar al-Assad were
an avoidable disaster that will have long-term consequences on American power worldwide.
The US and EU backed an Arab League plan to transition Syria from the Assad regime to a new, popularly elected government. The plan was proposed for UN endorsement, so that its execution would have the imprimatur of the UN and the implied weight of international approval. The Obama administration made execution of this plan, through the UN, the focus of US policy on Syria, as did the EU and its major member states.
They brought the question to a vote in spite of the fact that the positions of Russia and China on intervening in Syria have been unchanged for months.
It was predictable that Russia and China would veto the resolution. Indeed, it was a grave tactical error to force the confrontation. Russia’s and China’s greatest concerns have not changed, and instead of addressing them, the Atlantic members of the Perm-5 forced a vote.
This was a confrontation that did not have to happen. Russia’s and China’s concerns have sound elements. Consider the issue in this light: do we really want to set a precedent in which the UN gives its stamp of approval to regime-change proposals from the Arab League? Should the UN act as a fulcrum for regime change in this manner? If we allow it to, what will that mean for the future? For whom else will the UN endorse third-party plans for regime change?
The precedent in principle is one of the great problems here, and Russian and Chinese comments on the issue have consistently centered on it. Remember that the UN did not give its stamp of approval to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which had as its objective regime-changing Saddam Hussein. I never considered that a problem, and indeed was glad that a faulty precedent was not set then.
In 2011, the UN declined to endorse any regime-change proposal for Libya. In approving the use of force against the Qadhafi regime, the UN’s narrow justification was protection of civilians. That principle was strategically and operationally unsound, to be sure, but by invoking it, the US delegation and the UN avoided pushing for the bad precedent we have just demanded a vote on: having the UN endorse third-party proposals for regime change.
Frankly, Russia and China have good grounds for rejecting that proposal. It is not safe, for any nation, for the UN to be a source of such endorsements. The character of the UN is well known; it cannot be trusted with such a portfolio. Neither the United States nor any nation in Europe is naturally immune to attack by this method – but the Obama administration and the EU continue to behave as if we are.
...
By operating on a set of unrealistic ideological precepts, the Obama administration has made it impossible for Russia and China to tacitly accept US leadership and extract from it the benefits they can. The vetoes they exercised in Saturday’s vote have launched a new period in which they will make fewer and fewer bones about repudiating US leadership and pushing for alternative arrangements.
...
Apparently, Sarkozy is willing to dispense with American “leadership from behind,” and find a solution for Syria without the United States. France’s approach is commonsensical and realistic, and that could be a net positive for Syria and the region. But Russia and China have their own diplomatic channels and proposals in Syria; it is not a given that France’s initiative is the one that will carry the day. In any case, the outcome could very well be worked out without any real input from US power.
Read the whole thing.
She makes a good point: Do we really want the Arab League and the UN determining which regimes ought to be changed?
Labels: Arab League, Barack Hussein Obama, China, European Union, Russia, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council
Assad tells the Arab League he's not going anywhere
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has rejected an Arab League plan that would have him
hand over power to a deputy while new elections are held.
Syrian state TV quoted an anonymous officials source as saying that the Arab plan, which also called for early elections and a unity government, is an "attack" on Syria's sovereignty and a "flagrant interference in internal affairs," according to AFP.
Arab foreign ministers agreed on Sunday to a new political roadmap for Syria that would see Assad delegating power to a deputy and setting up a unity government as a prelude to early parliamentary and presidential elections.
Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani told a news conference after a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo that the Arab League would take its initiative to the UN Security Council and ask for its endorsement.
The meeting followed an announcement by Saudi Arabia that it was withdrawing its observers from the country after an Arab monitoring mission failed to stem 10 months of bloodshed.
Details of the Arab plan were not immediately available Sunday night. Still, a draft agreement leaked during the negotiations called for an independent Syrian commission of inquiry created to look into violations committed during the country’s uprising.
It was not clear, however, how the League might enforce its latest plan, given the failure of an Arab observer team in Syria to end the Assad government's repression of an uprising in which the United Nations says 5,000 people have died.
Maybe they should send Jimmy Carter there....
Labels: Arab League, Bashar al-Assad, Syrian uprising
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, December 29.
1) The ironic headline
A New York Times headline read Violence flares despite despite Arab League Observers. Human rights advocates have questioned whether the team has the qualifications or enough independence from the government to help end a conflict that many fear is veering toward civil war as growing numbers of armed men join the opposition. Already, more than 5,000 people have been killed since the popular uprising began gathering momentum — and harsh government retaliation — in March, according to United Nations estimates.
The doubts about the observer mission seemed to grow Wednesday after comments by its leader, Lt. Gen. Muhammed al-Dabi, a former head of military intelligence in Sudan. Speaking about a visit on Tuesday to Homs that was interrupted by gunfire — and a city that has seen some of the worst violence in the nine-month conflict — General Dabi told Reuters, “Some places looked a bit of a mess, but there was nothing frightening.”
But there's more to General Dabi. The Washington Times reports Sudanese general linked to genocide monitoring Syrian violence. When a war criminal is put in charge of observing war crimes is he likely to stop them?
But the Arab League in the past has shown little compunction about Sudanese war criminals. In 2009, a Washington Post editorial observed, An Arab Summit Embraces the Butcher of Darfur.
So it was interesting to see what else was in the latest statement issued by the kings, princes and authoritarian presidents of the Middle East and North Africa. First there was a call on "the international community to prosecute those responsible" for alleged "war crimes" committed by Israel in its recent offensive in Gaza. Then came an ardent defense of Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir -- who was welcomed to the Doha summit despite an outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court on multiple war crimes charges.
2) Did Bibi miss something?
Former New York Times religion reporter Ari Goldman questions whether PM Netanyahu was correct to refuse to write an op-ed in the New York Times.
I sure hope Netanyahu reconsiders the offer. The best way to counter lies and distortions is with truth. In recent months, Netanyahu has taken Israel’s case to a joint session of the United States Congress (a friendly environment) and to the General Assembly of the United Nations (a hostile environment). At best, the New York Times falls somewhere in the middle. Why not take your case to the pages of America’s most influential newspaper?
Netanyahu was taking a stand. He wished to show that the New York Times had descended into parody, where Israel cannot be expected to get a fair hearing. I've written about this before. The September 13 Sampler included the following observation. My conclusion is in bold:
It is hard to find a pro-Israel, (or, at least, sympathetic to) Israel op-ed in the New York Times and I want to return to yesterday's op-ed, Palestinian Statehood.
Back in May after Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Israel from the United States and the New York Times reported Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure which starts:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
The article then quotes a number of pundits who were critical of Netanyahu's performance in the United States. However that same day Ha'aretz reported, Haaretz poll: Netanyahu's popularity soaring following Washington trip:
It's doubtful that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his wildest, most optimistic dreams, would have dared to imagine when he set off for the United States last week that Israelis would respond to his six-day trip so enthusiastically: According to a new Haaretz poll, they are giving the visit high marks, considering it an overwhelming success.
I'm not going to argue that polls prove anything and, they, of course, can be quite variable. But if there was a single objective measure of the Prime Minister's success, it was a poll. But the New York Times eschewed the poll and constructed a false narrative to fit its editorial position.
The next day the editors of the New York Times opined, The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks, which argued, in part:
His aides had raised hopes that Mr. Netanyahu would offer new ideas to revive talks, but there was really nothing new there. He insisted that Jerusalem “will never again be divided” and Israel’s Army would remain along the Jordan River. And while he basked in Congress’s standing ovations, Ethan Bronner reported in The Times that in Israel the trip was judged a diplomatic failure. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Mr. Netanyahu’s “same old messages” proved the country “deserves a different leader.” Palestinians dismissed the visit and said they would focus on nonviolent protests leading to September.
In other words the New York Times ignored objective evidence of the popularity of Netanyahu's performance and then used the misleading reporting as basis for a subsequent editorial.
Unfortunately, from the sound of Goldman's article, it doesn't sound like the New York Times got the message.
What, no
Richard Silverstein?
Soccer Dad only deals with serious stuff....
Labels: Arab League, Binyamin Netanyahu, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising
