Israel Matzav

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Heh....

David Frum has a good story about Jews flying via Saudi Arabia here.

Labels: David Frum, Saudi Arabia, Saudi treatment of non-Muslims

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Western media ignore anti-Semitism in Egypt

Martin Krossel of the David Frum forum worries that the international media is ignoring anti-Semitism in Egypt.

Frum cites two incidents that have largely been ignored by the mainstream media to prove that anti-Semitism in Egypt is being ignored by the mainstream media. I've discussed both of them at length on this blog. One is the appearance of Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi in Tahrir Square last Friday in front of two million Egyptians and his promise to 'liberate' Jerusalem. The other was the rape of Lara Logan and the cries of "Jew, Jew" while she was being raped - which were ignored by nearly all mainstream media outlets other than the New York Post.

Nothing new - right? Not according to Frum.

It’s hard to underestimate the significance of either the al-Qaradawi return or the Logan attack. Rubin maintains, “Qaradawi, though some in the West view him as a moderate, supports the straight Islamist line: anti-American, anti-Western; wipe Israel off the map, foment Jihad, stone homosexuals, in short the works.” Qaradawi is 84 years old – two years older than Mubarak. However, Rubin warns, “Make no mistake. Qaradawi is not some fossilized Islamic ideologue. He is brilliant and innovative, tactically flexible and strategically sophisticated. He is subtle enough to sell himself as a moderate to those who don’t understand the implications of his words or who look beneath the surface of his presentation.”

Rubin further asserts, “It is Qaradawi, not bin Laden, who is the most dangerous revolutionary in the world and he is about to unleash the full force of his power and persuasion on Egypt.” Rubin contends that if Qaradawi ends up running Egypt, it will be Israel that will be “left to pay the bill”. Qaradawi declared, during last Friday’s sermon, that he was looking forward to a celebration in Jerusalem was similar to the one in Cairo. And as Rubin pointed out, Qaradawi did not intend the ceremony to take place after the implementation of a negotiated “two-state solution.” Qaradawi has also pledged to keep the border between Egypt and Gaza open, which would make possible the inflow of arms to the Islamic terrorists now ruling Gaza.

The implications of the widespread suppression of the fact that Lara Logan’s attackers shouted anti-Semitic slurs are also profound. From the moment that rebellion broke out in Egypt, the international media almost universally referred to “pro-democracy” protesters, as if the demonstrators in Tahrir Square were today’s incarnation of American’s founding fathers. If only Mubarak, or his military, didn’t stubbornly try to withhold political power from those in the square, Egypt’s road to liberal democracy would be unhindered. The anti-Semitism of Logan’s attackers seriously challenges the validity of this portrayal of the Egyptian crisis.

At a symposium sponsored by the Hudson Institute earlier this month, Samuel Tadros, a founder and executive board member of the Egyptian Union of Liberal Youth, outlined the hurdles that Egypt might encounter on its way to democracy. He argued that while protesters in the street told foreign reporters that they wanted democracy, democracy isn’t defined by Egyptian protestors in the same way it is in the West. In the West, it’s usually thought to require liberal practices and traditions such as the rule of law and an independent judiciary.

For instance, Tadros pointed out that while Egyptian judges are independent, 92% of them voted to exclude women from their “judge’s club”. This decision was supported by the Egyptian government. Tadros also said that there are three political parties in Egypt that describe themselves as and are generally considered to be liberal. The Vice-President of one of these liberal parties actually authored an article titled “Are Jews Human?” He concludes that Jews are actually locusts who should be exterminated. Moreover, Tadros said that Egyptian schools and media had not provided Egyptian citizens with the kind of civic education that would allow them to participate in democratic discourse.

Tadros’ speech was televised by C-SPAN, where unfortunately it was probably not watched widely. An internet search that I conducted didn’t come up with any indication that Tadros had ever appeared on any of the other cable news networks, nor – with one exception – that he had even been mentioned in a major newspaper, such as The New York Times or The Washington Post. (He was the co-author of a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he elaborated on the popularity of anti-Semitism among Egyptian “liberals”.) Arguably, Tadros understands Egypt as well as anyone else in America. Why is the press not eagerly seeking his interpretation on the tumultuous events in his native country? Could it be that his argument, like the triumphant return of Qaradawi and the anti-Semitic slurs of Logan’s attackers, successfully throws a wrench into the notion that, without the likes of Mubarak and his cronies on their backs, Egypt’s transition to liberal democracy is assured?

The reason Frum had problems finding things about Tadros is that Tadros is quite young. He's a candidate for a Masters degree and a fellow at the Hudson Institute, which is how he happened to speak at this symposium.

C-Span has decided that this ought to be a fundraiser and not an occasion to get the message out. So they have not put the program on YouTube - only on their own web site. They have made it non-embeddable, but you can buy the DVD for $30 (No, I doubt any of you will rush out to do that).

But you can watch the speech. If you go here, Tadros is the first speaker in an hour and a half program. He speaks from about 6:37 to 16:51 (and Lee Smith is the next speaker, which will make you want to stay longer). The Q&A is at the end - I have not watched it.

The Hudson Institute has put part of Smith's speech on their website. Maybe they will put Tadros' speech up as well.

And yes, I agree with Frum - the fact that these two incidents are being ignored by most of the mainstream media is deeply troubling.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Arab democracy, David Frum, Egyptian regime change, Lee Smith, Samuel Tadros

Friday, February 11, 2011

Obama releases statement on Egypt

As I am sure you have all heard by now, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak addressed his nation on Thursday night and stunned everyone by announcing that he would not step down. The White House has issued a statement in response.

The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient. Too many Egyptians remain unconvinced that the government is serious about a genuine transition to democracy, and it is the responsibility of the government to speak clearly to the Egyptian people and the world. The Egyptian government must put forward a credible, concrete and unequivocal path toward genuine democracy, and they have not yet seized that opportunity.

As we have said from the beginning of this unrest, the future of Egypt will be determined by the Egyptian people. But the United States has also been clear that we stand for a set of core principles. We believe that the universal rights of the Egyptian people must be respected, and their aspirations must be met. We believe that this transition must immediately demonstrate irreversible political change, and a negotiated path to democracy. To that end, we believe that the emergency law should be lifted. We believe that meaningful negotiations with the broad opposition and Egyptian civil society should address the key questions confronting Egypt’s future: protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens; revising the Constitution and other laws to demonstrate irreversible change; and jointly developing a clear roadmap to elections that are free and fair.

We therefore urge the Egyptian government to move swiftly to explain the changes that have been made, and to spell out in clear and unambiguous language the step by step process that will lead to democracy and the representative government that the Egyptian people seek. Going forward, it will be essential that the universal rights of the Egyptian people be respected. There must be restraint by all parties. Violence must be forsaken. It is imperative that the government not respond to the aspirations of their people with repression or brutality. The voices of the Egyptian people must be heard.

The Egyptian people have made it clear that there is no going back to the way things were: Egypt has changed, and its future is in the hands of the people. Those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly represent the greatness of the Egyptian people, and are broadly representative of Egyptian society. We have seen young and old, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian join together, and earn the respect of the world through their non-violent calls for change. In that effort, young people have been at the forefront, and a new generation has emerged. They have made it clear that Egypt must reflect their hopes, fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential. In these difficult times, I know that the Egyptian people will persevere, and they must know that they will continue to have a friend in the United States of America.

As David Frum tweeted a short while ago

And everybody thought Obama's biggest confrontation with a Mideast ally would be vs B Netanyahu

Heh.

I think the odds of a military coup just went up.

Labels: Barack Obama, David Frum, Egyptian regime change, Hosni Mubarak, Omar Suleiman

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Must read: David Frum on PaliLeaks

I had to click through three different links to get to the full article, but it was worth it. Ultimately, the Hat Tip goes to Noah Pollak via Twitter.

David Frum nails what's troubling about Palileaks. Ultimately, what matters is not whether the documents are true or not, nor who leaked them, but the reaction of the 'Palestinian people' and the 'Palestinian leadership' and what those reactions tell us about the non-existent possibility of finding peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'

The Palestinian leaks show the Palestinian Authority leadership trying to work their way to the answer that "everybody knows."

But the secrecy surrounding the documents -- and the reaction to the leak -- confirms the Israelis' worst fear: The Palestinian population does not, in fact, "know" what "everybody knows." And a Palestinian leadership that did "know" what "everybody knows" is now being reviled by its own population as traitors and sell-outs.

What, after all, are the big, shameful concessions contained in the documents? Where are the wounds to Palestinian national pride?

• The documents as reported demand Palestinian sovereignty over almost all of historic Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism.

• The documents demand Palestinian control of lands equal in territory to the 1967 lands. Any border adjustment to reflect Israeli settlement activity would have to be balanced by an equivalent surrender of Israeli land to the new Palestinian state.

• Even after the Palestinians get their state on the other side of the 1967 line, the documents demand some kind of recognition of a Palestinian right to "return" to the Israeli side of the line. At one point, the documents suggest that the Israelis be required to resettle 100,000 Palestinians inside Israel.

If these ideas had been accepted as the basis of a final treaty between Israel and Palestine, every Middle East expert in Washington would have agreed that the Palestinians had done very, very, very well for themselves.

And yet, it never happened. It did not happen in very large part for exactly the reason now confessed by angry Palestinians themselves: because the actual demands of the Palestinian population are so much greater than any diplomat can gain.

Nothing else matters about these leaks except what the reaction to them shows about the 'Palestinians': They are not now and may never be ready for peace. When Blake Hounshell tweeted on Sunday, "I think today may be remembered as the day the two-state solution died," he was right, but not because of what the Palileaks documents show about the 'Palestinian' negotiation positions. Rather, the 'two-state solution' may now be officially dead because it has now been shown that it cannot possibly happen.

But wait - I knew that before and so did most of you. In fact, so did anyone who has had their eyes open for the last 20 years. And so, deep down, without their admitting it outside their own homes, do the 'Palestinians.' So why does the conflict continue? Why don't the 'Palestinians' just cut the best deal they can and be done with it? Frum nails that too.

The conflict is not being ended because the outside world supports and subsidizes the conflict. Palestinians who have lived in Lebanon since 1949 are not Lebanese. Ditto Palestinians who have lived in Syria or Jordan. They receive international aid on the condition that they remain refugees forever. They command attention only to the extent that they do not relinquish their grievances. Everywhere else on the planet, the world community insists that wars must end. This one war is the war that the international community pays to continue.

And when -- at long last! -- some Palestinian leaders take the tentative steps toward peace on more realistic terms, they must do so in desperate secret. They know what would happen if the deal ever emerged into view. They'd lose their public. As has happened.

When people say that the Middle East peace process is all process, no peace, here is why: because it is only so long that the process reaches no result that the people in charge of the process on the Palestinian side can remain in charge.

Indeed.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: Blake Hounshell, David Frum, Middle East peace process, Noah Pollak, Palileaks, Politics, World Politics