Obama may consider himself Jewish but that doesn't make him Israeli
Some of you might recall that Times of Israel editor in chief David Horovitz once told me that
he could not live in Israel if he believed there was no chance of 'peace' with the 'Palestinians.' But David isn't as naive as that statement might make you think, and he has been a vocal critic of President Obama. In a devastating piece in Wednesday's Times of Israel, he blasted Obama's claim that he '
knows how we feel.'
What you so evidently haven’t fully
internalized, however, is the extent to which we Israelis in the middle
ground — the non-zealots, the ones who don’t want to annex the West Bank and subvert our democracy, and who don’t
want a single binational entity between the river and the sea that puts
an end to Jewish statehood — have been battered by recent history, and
continue to be battered by the events unfolding all around us.
You seek to assure us that this deal with Iran
is in our own best interests when we know that Iran — which almost
daily calls for our destruction — will paint any agreement as a victory
and a vindication, and will utilize that ostensible victory to step up
its efforts to harm us, via terrorism and via its proxy armies in
Lebanon and Gaza, while also continuing to do its utmost to cheat and
bully its way to the bomb. We know that the deal will cement this
bleakest of regimes in power in Tehran, and that it was your negotiators
who blinked, who never forced the regime to choose between survival and
its nuclear program, when the financial leverage was available to
impose that choice.
You implore us, again and again, to give more
thought to the plight of the Palestinians, to turn away from leadership —
in the seemingly ever-present shape of Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — that peddles the politics of fear, and instead to choose the
path of optimism and opportunity. But Israel just elected Netanyahu
again, ignoring your entreaties, because the evidence of danger outweighed the evidence upon which to build hope. And here’s the irony, Mr. President: Your policies and your rhetoric haven’t helped.
You complained in the interview that there are
lots of “filters” between you and the Israeli people, who therefore are
not getting your message directly. (This, amusingly, in an interview
conveyed verbatim into the living rooms of the people of Israel, in
prime time, on our most-watched television channel; the full interview is also online here.) Believe me, Mr. President, the problem is not with the messenger. The problem is with the message, and the actions.
...
Have you truly internalized the fact that five years ago, Israel was
contemplating relinquishing the Golan Heights, the high strategic
ground, for a peace deal with Bashar Assad. Where would that have left
us now? Utterly vulnerable to the brutal spillover of anarchic violence
across that border.
Have you really, truly internalized that
Israel left southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, to the applause
and reassurance of the international community, only to see the vicious
terrorist armies of Hezbollah and Hamas fill the respective vacuums?
Have you really, honestly, utterly internalized that Hamas booted out
the forces of the relatively moderate Mahmoud Abbas from Gaza in a
matter of hours in 2007, and that there is every reason to believe that
Hamas would seek to do the same in the West Bank were Israel to do as
you wish, and pull out? And Hamas in the West Bank would entirely
paralyze this country. A single Hamas rocket that landed a mile from the
airport last summer prompted two-thirds of foreign airlines to stop
flying to Israel for a day and a half — including all the major US
airlines. A single rocket. Hamas rule in the West Bank would close down
our entire country.
...
But here’s where, with the greatest respect,
you’ve failed us thus far, Mr. President. You got the settlement freeze
six years ago, you got the prisoner releases in 2013, but what did you
wrest from Abbas? Did he stop the incitement against Israel? Did he
moderate his positions on the “right of return”? You fault Netanyahu for
his bleak wordview, but did you castigate Abbas for entering a
governing partnership which gives Hamas veto power over his ministers?
Did you tell him, sorry, that’s not going to work for us? No. You said
you’d keep right on dealing with him.
You berate Netanyahu for ruling out
Palestinian statehood on election eve, dismiss his subsequent
re-endorsement of a two-state solution as full of “so many caveats” as
to be unrealistic, and warn that Israel is consequently losing
international credibility, and that this makes it harder for you to
defend us internationally. But love or loathe Netanyahu, his concerns,
Mr. President, are compelling. Hamas did anticipate reducing Israel to rubble last summer, and only the extraordinary performance of Iron Dome prevented this. Hamas would try to take over the West Bank if we pulled out — and then to tunnel under and fire rockets over our borders.
Abbas has not encouraged his people to
internalize Jewish sovereign legitimacy in this part of the world. And
along with that hope you espied for a better future there is hatred,
too, in so many young Palestinian faces. Think of the toxin that must
have been absorbed by the 16-year-old Palestinian who stabbed to death
an 18-year-old Israeli soldier, Eden Atias, asleep next to him on a bus
in Afula, northern Israel, in November 2013. Think of your daughters, of
around that age, as I think of my children, and recognize how remote
from their most basic, decent, humane instincts is an act such as that,
and how systematic and relentless the climate of anti-Israel hostility
must be in the Abbas-controlled West Bank to have produced that killer
and others like him. The expansion of settlements discredits moderates,
and makes it easier for terrorist groups to recruit, but that’s not the
root of the hatred, the root of the conflict. At its heart, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict marches bloodily on because the Palestinian
leadership refuses to acknowledge that the Jewish nation has any
legitimacy here.
And you, Mr. President, so ready to fault us
for failures, ready even in your interview to cite American failures and
mistakes and lost values, have failed to insist on a similar
self-reflection, and morality, and assertion of humane values from the
Palestinians and their leadership.
Yes, we are mighty Israel, a military force to
be reckoned with, an economic powerhouse, and they are the poor
Palestinians, ostensibly only seeking statehood. But take a step back
and we are a tiny sliver of land, nine miles wide at our narrowest
point, on the western edge of a vast landmass filled with hundreds of
millions of people largely hostile to the very fact of our existence. If
our enemies were to lay down their weapons right now, Mr. President,
there would be peace. If we were to lay down our weapons, our country
would be destroyed. And therefore, Mr. President, we will need a great
deal more reassurance before we dare to hope.
Read the whole thing. Obviously, I don't agree with everything he said, but this will give you some idea why the Right keeps winning elections in this country.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, David Horovitz, Hamas, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Iranian nuclear threat, Palestinian incitement, rockets, two-state solution
12 ways Obama has screwed Israel... in the last year
I don't agree with everything he writes and David Horovitz doesn't even mention Turkey (okay, that was March 2013), but this is a devastating piece that lists
12 ways in which Obama has screwed Israel over the last year (David would never put it so coarsely). Here's a summary:
You might think the above list is the least that Israel might reasonably
expect from the US administration. But no. The peace process has
collapsed and Israel is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame.
Hamas, committed under its own charter to the obliteration of Israel, is
now part of an internationally recognized Palestinian government. And
the P5+1 nations, led by the US, are working toward a deal that will
enshrine Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities. Israel may not be a
perfect ally, but we deserve better than this.
But what gets me about this is that David Horovitz - who once told me that he could not live in Israel without hope for peace - still holds out hope and even more importantly still cannot see that Obama and his wing of the Democratic party are Israel's enemies.
Unfortunately, however, such lapses and failures are not the exception
when it comes to the US-Israel alliance of late. This administration has
worked closely with Israel in ensuring the Jewish state maintains its
vital military advantage in this treacherous neighborhood, partnering
Israel in offensive and defensive initiatives, notably including missile
defense. It has stood by Israel at diplomatic moments of truth. It has
broadly demonstrated its friendship, as would be expected given
America’s interest in promoting the well-being of the region’s sole,
stable, dependable democracy. But the dash to recognize the Fatah-Hamas
government was one more in a series of aberrations — words and deeds
that would have been far better left unsaid or undone, misconceived
strategies, minor betrayals.
Actually, it's Congress that's been partnering Israel and forcing Obama to go along. Obama has abandoned Israel each time he has felt able to do so. '
Stood by Israel at diplomatic moments of
truth?
Really?
Labels: Abu Mazen, anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, David Horovitz, Iranian nuclear threat, Middle East peace process, Mohammed Morsy, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, Syrian uprising
Peace index: 87% of Israelis Think Chances Are Low for Framework Agreement in Coming Months, Most Agree with Yaalon Criticism
I received the monthly peace index in my morning email and I will therefore publish it in full. A few comments at the end.
87% of Israelis Think Chances Are Low for Framework Agreement in Coming Months
Majority of Israeli Jews Back Defense Minister’s Criticism of US Foreign Policy But Say It Should Not
Have Been Made Public
Tuesday, 8 April 2014, Israel Democracy Institute, 4 Pinsker St., Jerusalem
– The Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) and Tel Aviv University have
released the monthly Peace Index poll, which this month covers Israeli
public opinion on the peace process, the Defense Minister’s criticism of
American foreign policy, European involvement
in the peace process, and a potential Turkish-Israeli reconciliation.
The Peace Process: Support for, Chances of Success, and Urgency
·
Support for Negotiations:
65% of Israelis
(62% of Israeli Jews and 80% of Israeli Arabs) favor peace negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 31% of Israelis (35% of
Israeli Jews and 15% of Israeli Arabs) oppose such negotiations.
·
Chances of Success of US-Brokered Negotiations:
87% of Israelis (92% of Jewish Israelis and 62% of Arab Israelis) think
chances are low that in the coming months the Palestinians and Israel,
with the mediation and help of the US administration, will succeed in
reaching a framework for a peace agreement.
(Jewish Israelis who see chances of success as low include 95% of the
self-identified right, 89% of the center, and 87% of the left.) 12% of
Israelis (7% of Jewish Israelis and 35% of Arab Israelis) think chances
for such an agreement are high.
·
Urgency to Reach an Agreement:
52% of Israelis
think that it is urgent at present to reach an agreement with the
Palestinians, while 45% do not believe it is urgent. Among the Jewish
public who think reaching an agreement is urgent are 37% of the right,
68% of the center, and 87% of the left.
Israeli Defense Minister’s Criticism of American Foreign Policy
·
Accuracy of Criticism:
65% of the Jewish
public agrees with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon’s
criticism that US foreign policy shows weakness, while 27% disagree.
44% of the Arab public disagrees with Yaalon’s criticism, and 32% agree
that the US is displaying weakness.
·
Voicing Criticism Publicly:
72% of Israeli
Jews agree with the claim that though Yaalon was right in his criticism
he should not have voiced it publicly, while 25% do not agree with the
claim. 48% of Israeli Arabs disagree with the claim, while 32% agree.
·
Damage to US-Israel Cooperation:
49% of Israeli
Jews believe that criticism such as Yaalon’s – of American foreign
policy in the Middle East and elsewhere – cannot significantly damage
the political cooperation between the US and Israel, while 47% believe
that such criticism can damage cooperation. 43%
of Israeli Arabs believe that such criticism of the US can
significantly damage US-Israel cooperation, while 38% believe that it
cannot.
·
Rating Ministerial Performance:
When rating
the performance of several ministers on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10
(excellent), the Jewish public gave an average grade of 6.55 to Defense
Minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon, 5.45 to Foreign Minister Avigdor
Liberman, 5.38 to Health Minister Yael German, and 4.27
to Finance Minister Yair Lapid. The Arab public gave an average grade
of 5.80 to German, 4.94 to Yaalon, 3.33 to Lapid, and 3.05 to Liberman.
European Involvement in the Peace Process
·
European Fairness to Israel:
76% of Jewish
Israelis and 47% of Arab Israelis believe that Europe is not treating
Israel fairly in the context of the search for a solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, while 20% of Jewish Israelis and 42% of
Arab Israelis believe that Europe is treating Israel
fairly.
·
Assistance for Peace:
42% of Israeli Jews
state that the December European offer of “unprecedented” economic,
political, and security assistance to promote a peace agreement would
not affect their readiness to support a peace agreement; 37% state that
the offer could influence their readiness to support
a peace agreement depending on the terms of the offer, and 10% state
the offer will influence their readiness to support an agreement. 28%
of Israeli Arabs state that the European offer will influence their
readiness to support an agreement, 25% state that
the offer could influence their support depending on its terms, and 14%
stated that the offer will not affect their readiness to support an
agreement. 7% of Israeli Jews and 16% of Israeli Arabs believe that
Europe is not important to Israel and they are
not interested in any offer related to the peace process.
Turkish-Israeli Reconciliation
·
Importance of Reconciliation:
Reportedly,
a reconciliation agreement between Turkey and Israel will soon be
signed which will stipulate compensation to the families of those killed
on the
Mavi Marmara and a renewal of diplomatic relations. 74% of
Israelis think it is important, in light of the situation in the Middle
East, that Israel improve its relations with Turkey, while 23% see an
improvement in relations as not important.
·
Responsibility for Crisis in Turkish-Israeli Relations:
81% of Jewish Israelis believe Turkey is more responsible for the
crisis in relations between the two states, while 9% believe both sides
are equally responsible and 6% believe that Israel is more responsible.
Among Arab Israelis, 54% think Israel is more
responsible for the crisis, 17% think both sides are equally at fault,
and 11% think Turkey is more responsible.
This
survey, conducted on March 30 - 31, 2014, included 600 respondents who
constitute a representative sample of the adult population of Israel.
The measurement error for a sample of this size is ±4.1%.
For more information or to schedule an interview with Peace Index Co-Director Prof. Tamar Hermann, contact:
Yehoshua Oz
Director of International Communications
press@idi.org.il
A few comments. First, notice that while most Israelis think Defense Minister Yaalon should have kept his criticism of Obama-Kerry to himself, most of them agree with that criticism, and Yaalon's performance rating among Jews is higher than any other minister, and among Arabs it's among the higher ratings.
Second, most Jews still describe reaching a peace agreement as 'urgent.' This is a failing of the Right. We have not succeeded in making people understand that a peace agreement is not possible for the foreseeable future. Perhaps they don't want to understand. Seven years or so ago, I heard David Horovitz (then editor-in-chief of the JPost and now in the same position at the Times of Israel) speak at a synagogue
outside Boston. After the program ended, I went up and introduced
myself. He was already familiar with my blog. I told him that I had no
hope that there would ever be peace with the 'Palestinians.' He told me
that he could not live in Israel if he felt like I feel. I wonder if
he's still hopeful. I suspect that he is and so are the rest of the Israeli Jews who call reaching an agreement with the 'Palestinians' urgent.
Third, the Europeans have absolutely NO influence here. For a group of countries that constitutes Israel's largest export market, that's amazing. But that's what happens when you make your bias painfully obvious. It's clear to all of us that the Europeans buy from Israel because they see no choice (our products are that good) and not out of any love for Israel or guilt over their treatment of Jews for more than a millennium.
Finally, it's disappointing that they didn't ask whether people think a reconciliation with Turkey is going to happen. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, David Horovitz, European anti-Semitism, European obsession with Israel, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Moshe Yaalon, Peace Index, Turkish obsession with Israel
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, February 15.
1) New NYT Jerusalem Bureau chief
Ethan Bronner in an e-mail to Politico explains why he's leaving his post as the New York Times bureau chief in Israel:
My son, who is 22, not 21, left the Israeli army a year ago. And I have not been reassigned. I asked to return. It has been 4 years, my parents are in their 90s and I originally promised to stay only three years, both my sons are there, my wife wants to return to her psychoanalytic practice. So we are coming home. I told the paper I wanted to keep writing. The national legal beat was suggested. I happily agreed.
The reason Bronner had to write the e-mail is because this is how the reporter, Dylan Byers originally framed the change:
Bronner's 22-year-old son was* a member of the Israeli Defense Forces, a conflict of interest first raised by the website Electronic Intifada. Shortly thereafter, former public editor Clark Hoyt looked into the matter and found that, despite the 'unerring sense of fairness' mentioned above, Bronner's son's assignment put the bureau chief in a problematic position.
"Bronner is a superb reporter... But, stepping back, this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side," he wrote last February. "Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out."
"I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong," he continued. "But this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F."
Despite Hoyt's recommendation, the paper did not reassign Bronner.
Byers strongly implied - with no proof - that Bronner was being re-assigned on account of his son. By doing so he kept alive the calumny that Bronner was biased on account of his son.
Clark Hoyt, then the public editor of the New York Times was fully complicit in taking the charge of an anti-Israel activist and giving it legitimacy. Byers quoted from the column, Too close to home, Hoyt wrote two years ago.
Was there any objective evidence to support Ali Abunimah's charge? No. For example in an article Israeli Soldiers Convicted of Using Boy as Shield, Bronner reported:
But human rights groups say that the military’s criminal proceedings are insufficient and that Israeli troops carried out a number of atrocities that require outside investigation.
The United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, to lead an inquiry into the war’s conduct. His report, issued a year ago, said there was compelling evidence of war crimes by both sides. It said that Israel had waged war on Gaza’s civilians and civilian infrastructure in an act of inexcusable collective punishment.
...
The Goldstone report cited four episodes in which Israeli soldiers were said to have used Palestinians as shields, but those were all adults in other parts of Gaza.
The implication here is that despite the convictions, the IDF could or should have done more to investigate reported wrongdoings of its soldiers. Could this, in any way, be construed as favored treatment on account of his son? Absolutely not. Rather than defending the reporter (as opposed to then executive editor Bill Keller who, to his credit, defended Bronner ) Hoyt gave credence to the complaint of an anti-Israel activist, with no evidence to back it up. Hoyt's disgraceful performance showed the anti-Israel crowd that they could effectively challenge the credibility of any reporter.
So with this in mind, when Ali Abuminah tweeted:
This would demonstrate that undocumented charges of anti-Israel activists (who are usually much less civil than CAMERA) carry greater weight with the management of the New York Times than careful critiques of pro-Israel groups.
When I first heard that Ethan Bronner would be the new Israel correspondent for the New York Times four years ago, I had misgivings. Barry Rubin e-mailed me that Bronner would be a huge improvement over the incumbent, Steven Erlanger. Still Prof. Rubin predicted that Bronner would sometimes "bend over backwards" to show that he wasn't too pro-Israel. That would be a pretty good description of Bronner's tenure in Israel. He has been better than most American correspondents in recent years, however he has often reported Israel's critics and enemies much too uncritically.
Bronner was an improvement over Erlanger. Given the intimidation by the anti-Israel crowd and Rudoren's apparent leanings, I have no confidence that she will be an improvement over Bronner.
2) Other than that Beinart was right
Jodi Rudoren recently tweeted an uncritical promotion of yesterday's Roger Cohen column.
The problem with Cohen's column is that it is based on Peter Beinart's recent book and that, as Shmuel Rosner shows, Beinart's central premise is mistaken.
There are a lot of details in this new study, and a lot to chew on, but the bottom line is what most readers care about, and it is quite clear: “In all four pairs of surveys under analysis, the overall level of emotional attachment to Israel increased between Time 1 (a survey conducted in the 1990s) and Time 2 (a survey conducted in the 2000s)”. It didn’t decrease – that’s what one would expect if there’s “distancing” – but rather increased. The authors state it plainly: “there is no evidence of declining attachment across the generations” as “the available evidence suggests increased attachment between the early 1990s and mid-2000s for the American Jewish population as a whole and increased attachment over the lifecycle for individual American Jews (in particular as they aged into mid-life). The evidence does not show decline from the older to the younger generations during the period 1990-2005”.
While I don't agree with everything he writes, Rabbi David Wolpe takes issue with Beinart's self-importance:
Beinart’s email represents what is wrong with the debate: It is smug in its dismissal of Israel’s leadership and grandiose in presenting one view as the sole salvation of that beleaguered nation’s honor. Peter Beinart raises crucial, abiding issues. Then he compares those who take a different view to racist destroyers of democracy. This is not debate. This is not dialogue. This is demagoguery. He is better than this and we must be too. In Pirke Avoth, Avtalion warns sages to be careful with their words. The warning applies to those who are not sages, as well.
3) How to bash Bashar
Recently Barry Rubin wrote in What to do about Syria:
But to return to the question of what the West or world should do: Listen to the democratic opposition. It wants two things, obviously taken from the Iraqi case: a no-fly zone for Syrian military aircraft and the creation of a safe zone — presumably near the Turkish border — for refugees, fugitives, and the Free Syrian Army.
When I mention the “no-fly” zone to people they ask, “But the Syrian air force isn’t bombing the rebels, right? So what good is this?” The answer is that we’re not talking about fighters or bombers but about helicopter gunships and transport planes. With Syria rushing troops around the country to counter the uprisings, the point is to make it harder for them to do so.
If any plan is going to be considered for intervention this one seems to be the best starting point. Its virtues and shortcomings should be thoroughly discussed so as to decide whether this is a good thing to do. This would be preferable to the current debate that lurches between total passivity and adventurous intervention.
(Soner Cagaptay made a similar argument, but based on Bosnia.)
In the new online publication Times of Israel (h/t Avraham F), edited by former Jerusalem Post editor, David Horovitz, Ehud Ya'ari makes some suggestions for Israel, Taking Sides:
- Israel should — and it is definitely not impossible — establish quiet channels to some different factions and personae amongst the fragmented opposition groupings. Having maintained for years contacts with quite a few of them, I have reached the conclusion that unlike Egypt or Tunisia, Syria is not necessarily destined to fall under a Moslem Brotherhood regime, although Islamists are certainly key players in the current uprising.
- Using its long-standing contacts to the Druze community, Israel could try to encourage the inhabitants of Suweida Province (The Druze Mountain) in Southern Syria to throw their lot against Assad. So far the Druze have been hesitant to pick sides, but once they do, it will have an enormous impact on the attitude of other important minorities — Christians, Kurds, Ismailis, Circassians.
- Israeli intelligence agencies possess huge amounts of detailed quality data on the Assad killing machine — they know who gives orders to whom and how; they know what the instructions are and how are they carried out. This is information that is highly incriminating and embarrassing to Assad. Some of these treasures can be leaked without risking valuable intelligence assets. Remember the famous telephone conversation between President Nasser of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan which was made public by the IDF during the 1967 war? There are many buyers for good stuff — let us start unclassifying a few samples and passing them to the proper non-Israeli media outlets!
In Like Father, Like Son, Thomas Friedman writes:
I don’t know what is sufficient to persuade Assad to cede power to a national unity government, but I know what is necessary: He has to lose the two most important props holding up his regime. One is the support of China, Iran and Russia. There, the U.N., the European Union and Arab and Muslim countries need to keep calling out Moscow, Beijing and Iran for supporting Assad’s mass killing of unarmed civilians. China, Iran and Russia don’t care about U.S. condemnation, but they might care about the rest of the world’s.
The other prop, though, can only be removed by Syrians. The still-fractious Syrian opposition has to find a way to unify itself and also reach out to the Alawites, as well as Syria’s Christian and Sunni merchants, and guarantee that their interests will be secure in a new Syria so they give up on Assad. Without that, nothing good will come of any of this. The more the Syrian opposition demonstrates to itself, to all Syrians and to the world that it is about creating a pluralistic Syria — where everyone is treated as an equal citizen — the weaker Assad will be and the more likely that a post-Assad Syria will have chance at stability and decency. The more the Syrian opposition remains fractured, the stronger Assad will be, the more some Syrians will cling to him out of fear of chaos and the more he will get away with Hama Rules.
Compared to the other suggestions, Friedman's seems generic rather than informed. Friedman also ignores any military intervention placing his full faith in diplomacy.
I note with satisfaction David Horovitz's return to the media. While Soccer Dad was comparing correspondents at the
Times, he might also have favorably compared Horovitz - who was a fair and balanced editor in chief at the
Jerusalem Post - to Horovitz's successor, Steve Linde, who has made some questionable decisions in his thus-far-brief tenure.
Labels: David Horovitz, Ethan Bronner, Jodi Rudoren, Middle East Media Sampler, New York Times, Soccer Dad, Steve Linde, Syrian uprising
Britain's moral imbeciles
In some earlier posts, I looked at the media's reactions to Wednesday's events in Jerusalem. Here's Melanie Phillips with
the Beeb's reaction. An interview transmitted a few minutes ago on BBC World with the Editor-in-Chief of the Jerusalem Post, David Horowitz, established what I’m sure will be the signature motif of moral imbecility with which this latest atrocity will be reported by the British and western media. The interviewer asked whether this bomb attack was most likely in response to the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza in which eight civilians, four of them children, had been killed.
After a small but perceptible intake of breath, Horowitz replied correctly that the recent atrocity of note had been the cold-blooded massacre of the Fogel family including a three-month old baby, who had had their throats slit. This had been followed by an enormous rocket and missile barrage from Gaza into southern Israel. The Israeli bombing of Gaza's terror infrastructure had been an attempt to deter further such attacks; regrettably, some Gazan civilians had been killed in the process.
Clearly, there is currently a huge upsurge in murderous violence by Arabs from the disputed territories, of which this bus bombing is but the latest example. It therefore takes a particular degree of bone-headed malevolence to view this latest attack instead as a ‘tit-for-tat' response to Israeli violence. But then, the BBC and other British and western media have all but ignored the rocket attacks, and minimised the Fogel massacre. As usual, Israeli victimisation is thus denied in an obscene moral equivalence – which invariably turns Israel from a victim attempting to defend itself into the aggressor.
But the media’s culpability does not end there with its mere perversion of journalism. The fact that it can be relied upon to blame the Israelis for their own slaughter means that the slaughterers believe they can murder Israelis with impunity – better still, that the more Israelis they murder, the more Israel will be blamed; and if Israel should take military action to stop the attacks, the world will punish Israel and reward its attackers even more.
Well, if Obama can give us moral equivalence, why not the Beeb?
Labels: anti-Israel media bias, BBC bias, David Horovitz
Israelis awakening to reality
The monthly 'peace index' for January has been released and what it shows is that most Israelis are awakening to the reality that
peace is not on the horizon (Hat Tip: IMRA).
Peace with Syria? The degree of the Jewish public’s readiness for a full peace with Syria in return for all of the Golan Heights, combined with its (dis)belief in the chances of this in the foreseeable future, is amazingly consistent over time: ever since 1994, about two-thirds oppose giving up the Golan for peace, and about the same percentage does not believe in the chances for peace with Damascus or in the sincerity of Assad’s declarations that he is interested in peace. In the Arab public, the majority is prepared for peace in return for the Golan and believes in Assad’s sincerity; as in the Jewish public, however, only a third believe in the chances that this will happen.
And with the Palestinians? A clear majority (68%) of the Jewish public thinks that the Palestinians do not see the two-state solution as the end of the road, and that even if a peace agreement is signed, the Palestinians will continue the struggle to create a Palestinian state in the entire Land of Israel. A recent survey in the territories, which was conducted by and American team, found that the majority of Palestinians indeed view the two-state formula as an interim stage, and believe the conflict will only end when a Palestinian state is established in all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Is there a possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence? Fifty percent of the Jewish public thinks that, notwithstanding the stalled negotiations, the chances for a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence are low, but a large minority (44%) sees the chances as high (this in contrast to the Arab public, in which only 28% estimate the chances as high). The Jewish public is split (48% for each side) on whether Israel can count on an American veto in the United Nations to prevent an overall recognition of the Palestinian state without a peace agreement (a majority of the Arabs expect a U.S. veto). This is apparently one of the reasons that a Jewish plurality (47% as opposed to 39%) views the present situation, in which there is no progress in negotiations, as bad for Israel’s national interests. Among the Arabs two-thirds see it that way.
Should organizations’ funding sources be investigated? A majority of the Jewish public (66.5%) and a small majority of the Arab public (53%) favors investigating the funding sources of the human rights and peace organizations. However, a much larger Jewish majority (84%, and a 62% majority of the Arabs) considers that, if it is decided to investigate the foreign funding, all the organizations should be investigated whatever their political positions. Seventy-two percent of the Jewish public think the investigation should be conducted by the legal authorities rather than by the Knesset, while only 14.5% say the opposite.
There were a number of articles in the weekend newspapers that warn that what's important about Palileaks is not the documents themselves but the motivations for publishing them and the reactions to them. David Horovitz wrote a
long piece in the JPost asking what would happen if the 'Palestinians' actually said, "yes, this is what we said and it's time to realize that we have to compromise." But even Horovitz admits that's fanciful.
Labels: David Horovitz, Land for peace, Peace Index, two-state solution
David Horovitz gets to say 'I told you so'
Although he is not the only one who said it, JPost Executive Editor David Horovitz has been one of the earliest, most public and most consistent voices arguing against the 'linkage' the Obama administration attempted to create between resolving the dispute between Israel and the 'Palestinians' and dealing with the Iranian nuclear drive. And now, with what we know from Wikileaks, Horovitz and many others get to say 'I told you so.' The difference is that David has a
JPost column from which to do it.
To my mind, the president’s thinking defied common sense. Now we know, however, that it also defied the concrete information he was receiving from his own diplomats.
THE OBAMA administration, it is now clear for all to see, was not pressing a reluctant Netanyahu to make settlement-freeze and other concessions to the Palestinians in part because it truly believed this would be helpful in generating wider support for tackling Iran.
Not at all. The United States, we now know courtesy of WikiLeaks, was being repeatedly urged by a succession of Arab leaders to smash an Iranian nuclear program they feared would destabilize the entire region and put their regimes at risk. Their priority was, and is, battering Ahmadinejad, not bolstering Abbas.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in 2008, had not urged the US to chivvy those recalcitrant Israelis toward concessions to the Palestinians as a pre-condition for grudging Saudi support for a firmer US-led position against Iran. Anything but. Never mind the Palestinians, the king simply implored Washington to “cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake.”
Likewise, with minor variations in the course of the following year, the rulers of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi.
We are now starting to hear, courtesy of WikiLeaks, what Jordan and Egypt had to say on the matter too.
Obama, that is, was not the prisoner of a misconception, convinced in absolute good faith that if he could deliver Israeli concessions at the negotiating table he might stand a greater chance of getting the Arabs on board for the battle with the mullahs. No, he had the diplomatic cables to prove that the Israeli- Palestinian conflict was no obstacle to wide Arab backing, indeed wide Arab entreaties, for the toughest possible measures against Iran, emphatically including military action.
Either the president, it can be concluded, was so attached to his misconception that he refused to let the concrete information he had on Arab leaders’ thinking get in the way – sticking to his view of the region in defiance of the facts.
Or, more plausibly, he had internalized full well that he didn’t actually need the cover of a substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace process to generate Arab support for tackling Iran’s nuclear program, but chose to pressure Israel just the same, as a tactic, because he felt Israel was not being sufficiently forthcoming on the Palestinian front.
Neither explanation sits well, to put it mildly.
Read the whole thing. David is much more mildly mannered than I am (some of you may recall that we met three and a half years ago when I attended a talk of his), and he doesn't get into Obama's motivations. The picture at the top of this post illustrates what I believe to be Obama's motivations. It's saved on my computer under the caption "Obama's dream."
Jews believe that God is behind anything and everything that happens in this World. Nothing happens without a reason. Nothing can be dismissed as coincidence. Wikileaks' massive document dump may have had other reasons, but I believe that one of them was to give us the opportunity to see clearly the enemy in the White House (and yes, I believe the Wikileaks dump makes clear that he is an enemy) and to take action to make sure his dream does not come true.
Labels: David Horovitz, linkage, Obama's dream, Wikileaks
