Labels: Jerusalem, Palestinian culture, Palestinian incitement, Palestinian terrorism, promoting terrorism
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:44 AM
0 comments
Labels: Hamas, Palestinian children, Palestinian culture, terrorist martyrs
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:09 AM
0 comments
But there are cultures whose favored mode is not voluntary but coerced and zero-sum relations, where the principle of "rule or be ruled" dominates political and economic life. The elites in such cultures hold hard work in contempt, and they distrust intellectual openness and uncontrolled innovation as subversive. They emphasize rote learning and unquestioning respect for those in authority. Protection rackets rather than law enforcement assure the public order and bleed the economy. Public criticism brings sharp retaliation. Powerful actors acquire wealth by taking, rather than making.Read the whole thing.
Few cultures on the planet better illustrate the latter traits than the Arab world, a fact outlined in painful detail by a 2002 United Nations report written by Arab intellectuals. As "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" points out, Arab culture intensifies these problems with its attitude of hyper-jealousy and misogyny toward women, which turns out entitled sons and cloistered daughters.
Even the huge influx of petrodollars did not change the basic contours of Arab economies: Rather than fueling economic development that benefited all, it bloated corrupt and opaque elites. Oil-rich countries like Libya and Iraq have social structures akin to those of oil-bereft Egypt and Syria. Change may occur, but it is hindered by an authoritarian culture that fears it. Such societies impoverish the masses, while elites thrive on their debasement.
Strikingly, Palestinian culture compares favorably with that of other Arabs. Palestinians have higher education, a strong work ethic and successful entrepreneurs. Much of that comes from their close association with the Zionists, who (unlike Western imperialists) settled the land without conquest, by dint of making everyone more prosperous.
From the late 19th century, Arab populations grew and prospered where Jews settled (Tel Aviv, Hebron, Jerusalem) and remained stagnant and poor where they didn't (Gaza, Nablus, Nazareth). Many Arabs found the presence of Jews a great advantage. Thus the Palestinian diaspora is among the best-educated and most competent in the Arab world—and under Israeli rule (the notorious "occupation") the West Bank was one of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world in the 1980s.
Other Palestinians, however, found Jewish economic leadership an unbearable blow to their pride. Said one to the British Peel Commission in 1936: "You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it, and I do not care how poor it is if I am only master of it."
Sooner rule in hell than share in heaven. These actors have dominated Palestinian political culture, and terrorized Israeli and Palestinian alike, for generations.
In calling Mr. Romney's remarks "racist" and blaming Palestinian economic difficulties on Israel's "occupation," Mr. Erekat illustrated one of David Landes's major points: Blaming others for one's own failures prolongs failure. Even though his own government daily chooses a culture of death, not life, Mr. Erekat wants to blame Israel for Palestine's woes; no admission here that he and his colleagues might have some role in the suffering of their own people.
Labels: Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney, Palestinian culture, Palestinian economy
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:28 PM
0 comments
1) "Victim of this, Victim of that"
Mitt Romney's comments about the role culture plays in economic success has led to counterclaims that it is Israel's occupation, not Palestinian culture that is responsible for the Palestinians' economic problems. We saw it in the Washington Post editorial Mitt Romney's less than successful trip abroad:His comparison left out restrictions on Palestinian trade, workers and goods imposed by Israel over many years, and, more to the point, he reflected an alarmingly simplistic view of complex questions.In a New York Times op-ed, Palestinian tycoon Munib Masri wrote:As one of the most successful businessmen and industrialists in Palestine today (there are many of us), I can tell Mr. Romney without doubt or hesitation that our economy has two arms and one foot tied behind us not by culture but by occupation.From comments like these one might get the impression that Israeli arbitrarily set up checkpoints for the sole purpose of making life miserable for the Palestinians.
It’s hard to succeed, Mr. Romney, when roadblocks, checkpoints and draconian restrictions on the movement of goods and people suffocate our business environment. It is a tribute to the indomitable spirit of our Palestinian culture that we have managed to do so well despite such onerous constraints.
In November, 1998, towards the end of his first term as Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu's government issued a report about Israeli-Palestinian economic relations. One paragraph read:The number of Palestinians working in Israel is steadily growing. Lawfully employed Palestinians in Israel today number about 60,000, of whom some 13,000 work in industrial zones and in the settlements. All told, more than 100,000 Palestinians are estimated to be employed in Israel approaching the record number employed in 1992.Since the benchmark was 1992, it has to be asked why was this number not steadily increasing since Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The answer is that after the increase in terror, especially in early 1996, Israel imposed restrictions on Palestinian travel. After Netanyahu's election in 1996, terror decreased and consequently so did Israeli restrictions.
Similarly, after Arafat launched the so called Aqsa intifada in September, 2000 and claimed hundreds of Israeli lives, Israel imposed many restrictions anew. There was nothing "draconian" about these restrictions; they were necessary elements of self-defense. It's also worth observing that the post-Oslo security measures implemented by Israel showed that one of the fundamental premises of the peace process was overly optimistic. Israel assumed that with the peace process the Palestinians would fight or, at least, discourage terror.
2) The Kurdish Way
In an analysis for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Kurdistan: The Next Flashpoint Between Turkey, Iraq, and the Syrian Revolt, Jacques Neriah writes:In the wake of the steady disintegration of the Assad regime, Syrian opposition activists reported that several towns, such as Amouda and Qabani in Syria’s Kurdish northeast, had passed in mid-July 2012 without a fight into the local hands of a group called the Free Kurdish Army. Thus emerged for the first time in modern Kurdish history the nucleus of an exclusively Kurdish-controlled enclave bordering the predominantly Kurdish areas of Turkey. After largely sitting on the sidelines of the Syrian revolution, political groups from Syria’s Kurdish minority in the northeastern region appear to have moved decisively to claim control of the Kurdish-populated towns.The rest of the article provides extensive historical and social background of the Kurds.
The Free Kurdish Army was formed from the Democratic Union Party (PYD), a group with historical links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK. The PKK, it should be remembered, is regarded by both Turkey and the United States as a terrorist organization fighting the Turkish government for Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds are reportedly concentrating their efforts on wresting control of Qamishli, the largest of the Kurdish cities, from the Syrian government. Kurdish forces have already captured the city of Ayn al-Arab in the Aleppo Governorate, where they are flying the Kurdish flag.
...
Turkish observers have commented that the geopolitics of the Middle East are now being reshaped as the emergence of a “Greater Kurdistan” is no longer a remote possibility, posing enormous challenges for all the states hosting large Kurdish populations: Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.4 Kurdistan is a potential land bridge for many of the conflicts erupting in this part of the region. It provides a ground route for Iraqi Kurdistan to supply the Syrian Kurds as they seek greater autonomy from Damascus. But its use will depend on which power dominates the tri-border area between Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. This area could equally provide Iran with a corridor for moving supplies to its Syrian surrogates and even to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Perhaps this is why some commentators see Kurdistan as the new regional flashpoint in the Middle East.
Michael Rubin writes about other implications of the recent Kurdish assertiveness with regards to Turkey.
3) Ozy-Annan-Dis
Jonathan Schanzer catalogues the many failures of Kofi Annan, in The Cost of Kofi.That Annan failed should not come as a surprise. His default is failure: Whether it was Annan's professed failure to notice that his own son was profiting from the Oil for Food scandal in Iraq, the failure to prevent a genocide in Rwanda, or the failure to prevent mass murder in Srebrenica.Schanzer concedes that the violence in Syria is not Annan's fault, but under his watch the killing has continued. Annan is a product of the UN. It was his job as head of UN peacekeeping forces that provided the exposure that allowed him to be elected Secretary General, even though he failed miserably in the former capacity. At the UN nothing succeeds like failure.
Of course, Annan did not start the war in Syria, but perhaps he made things worse by legitimizing Bashar al-Assad as an equal partner in his peace plan, despite Assad's direct role in the slaughter of thousands. Annan made things messier still by bringing in Iran as an interlocutor, even as the world sought to isolate the Mullahs for their nuclear program, not to mention their deadly support for the regime in Damascus.
In the end, Annan's blunders contributed significantly to a prolonged and deadly stalemate from February 23 to July 31, the length of his tenure.
In reporting Annan's resignation, the VOA provided this headline: As Annan Resigns, UN Condemns Violence in Syria. I'm sure that condemnation will be as effective as Annan was.
(Ironically, Annan married the niece of Raoul Wallenberg, a man who actually saved lives at great risk in the face of murderous tyranny.)
Barry Rubin interviewed Ammar Abdulhamid, a pro-democracy Syrian activists currently living abroad, about the current situation and hopes for the future of Syria.Question: What do you see emerging in a post-Assad Syria?
The activist in me wants to see a democratic decentralized entity emerge that is capable of responding to the developmental needs and aspirations of the people, irrespective of their religious, national, or political background, in each province, region, and district. The analyst in me has to grapple with the possibility of inheriting a failed state composed of warring fiefdoms, and of the need to find ways to put the pieces back together again, a process that would take years. It was from the beginning clear to me that the transformation of Syria will prove a much longer process than most of us have expected or wanted. But our dream for a democratic state will guide us through the thin and thick of it all.
Labels: Arab democracy, Kofi Annan, Kurdistan, Middle East Media Sampler, Palestinian culture, Palestinian economy, Palestinian terrorism, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:17 PM
0 comments
1) The "culture" war against Mitt Romney cont.
Here are the first four references to Gov. Romney's "culture" statement in the New York Times, in order according a search of the paper's website:
Romney's charm offensive at the Taking Notes blog of editor Andrew Rosenthal.Another non-surprise: Just like in London, he held a fundraiser, attended by high-profile donors including Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who bankrolled Newt Gingrich’s hard-hitting attack on Mr. Romney before he started bankrolling Mr. Romney’s hard-hitting attack on Mr. Obama. And at this fundraiser he suggested that Israelis are more economically successful than Palestinians because of cultural differences. (A senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas had a different explanation: “this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation.”)Romney's comments on Palestinians draw criticism at the Caucus blog.“Culture makes all the difference,” Mr. Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.”Mitt Romney stumps in Israel is an unsigned editorial.
“As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” he said.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks “racist.”The message — on Iran, Jerusalem, the Palestinians — was all anti-Obama: Mr. Romney would be a much better friend to Israel than Mr. Obama ever could be. He would be much tougher on Iran. He would recognize Jerusalem as the capital. For good measure, he insulted the Palestinians by declaring that cultural differences — not decades under Israeli occupation — are the reason Israelis are more successful economically. It’s hard to say how this could affect policy if he were president, but it is not encouraging.Romney angers Palestinians with comments in Israel is the news story.The remarks, which vastly understated the disparities between the societies, drew a swift rejoinder from Palestinian leaders. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks racist.The Caucus blog item appears to be the earliest coverage of Romney's remarks and it was rewritten to become the news story. There is important background to Erekat's remarks.
John Nolte at Big Journalism noted an aspect of Erekat's response that Howard Kurtz of the Daily Beast uncovered:Hunt made no attempt to seek comment from Romney press aides, either on the ground or during a subsequent 4 1/2-hour flight to Poland, where Stevens sat near reporters for part of the trip. Buzbee’s explanation? Hunt “didn’t know whether it was going to cause a big flurry or not.”(Daled Amos has more.)
When they landed, Hunt saw on her BlackBerry that another AP reporter had gotten a sharp reaction from Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Erekat accused Romney of having made “a racist statement.” The controversy exploded at that point.
This is the nub of the dispute. The AP “could not have given Erekat a correct quote to respond to because they didn’t have it” with its reporter in the air and unreachable, Stevens told me. “The greatest sin here is that this was not a breaking news story. They could have waited three or four hours and gotten the story right.”
The Erekat quote was a response to an incomplete recounting of Romney's remarks. Since Erekat's statement was a great soundbite no news organization dug any deeper.
In addition to this early flurry of activity, the New York Times has run an ongoing campaign against Romney over the past week. For example, the Times published an op-ed by Jared Diamond, one of the authors cited by Romney, Romney hasn't done his homework, arguing that the candidate had misrepresented his thesis and that of David Landes. (The Times did not publish an op-ed by Landes's son arguing that Romney got his father's ideas correct. The Wall Street Journal did.) A column by Thomas Friedman argued that the Palestinians are doing well economically despite the occupation, echoing Erekat.
The other day, the New York Times added the oddest critique to its campaign, Munib Masri's op-ed Occupation not culture, Is holding Palestinians back:As one of the most successful businessmen and industrialists in Palestine today (there are many of us), I can tell Mr. Romney without doubt or hesitation that our economy has two arms and one foot tied behind us not by culture but by occupation.But as Barry Rubin pointed out four years ago in a column about Masri called None Dare Call in News Coverage (reprinted here in The Lid):
It’s hard to succeed, Mr. Romney, when roadblocks, checkpoints and draconian restrictions on the movement of goods and people suffocate our business environment. It is a tribute to the indomitable spirit of our Palestinian culture that we have managed to do so well despite such onerous constraints.“Critics say some of the profits were made possible by a lucrative telecommunications monopoly the company held for several years.”In other words if there was an exhibit of the problems Palestinian culture presented to the development of a functioning economy, Munib Masri would be a prime candidate. No doubt the editors of the New York Times don't expect its readers to know Masri's background; maybe they don't either.
We are not told from whence this monopoly came—from the PA. The word corruption is never mentioned. Such a lack of curiosity about the sources of his wealth does not accord with journalistic practices in covering other stories.
Indeed, the story of the telecommunications monopoly is one of the best-known stories of corruption among Palestinians. How PA and Fatah factions competed over the loot, how Arafat intervened directly into the issue.
In one week's time, the New York Times reported that a serious critique offered by a presidential candidate was a politically influenced gaffe, published a number of disputes to that critique and topped it off by publishing a rebuttal to the critique by a man who personified the critique.
2) If Burg's correct he will be arrested this week
The New York Times is very concerned with Israeli democracy. Not only does the paper treat us to regular laments of the "demographic threat" Israel faces. (The arguments take the form of "soon there will be more Palestinians than Jews between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River and Israel will face a choice between being a Jewish and a democratic state." These arguments ignore that demographic projections are notoriously unreliable and that as of 1995, 90% of the Palestinians lived under the authority of the Palestinian Authority.
Last year there was an editorial, Not befitting a democracy. That was followed a few months later by an op-ed In Israel, Press Freedom under attack, which was a dishonest reading of the Anat Kamm case. Last month there was an overwrought editorial, Israel's embattled democracy. Now Avraham Burg weighs in with Israel's fading democracy.The winds of isolation and narrowness are blowing through Israel. Rude and arrogant power brokers, some of whom hold senior positions in government, exclude non-Jews from Israeli public spaces. Graffiti in the streets demonstrates their hidden dreams: a pure Israel with “no Arabs” and “no gentiles.” They do not notice what their exclusionary ideas are doing to Israel, to Judaism and to Jews in the diaspora. In the absence of a binding constitution, Israel has no real protection for its minorities or for their freedom of worship and expression.Jonathan Tobin characterized this tendency of the Times brilliantly:
If this trend continues, all vestiges of democracy will one day disappear, and Israel will become just another Middle Eastern theocracy. It will not be possible to define Israel as a democracy when a Jewish minority rules over a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — controlling millions of people without political rights or basic legal standing.You might think that even the New York Times would get tired of publishing rants from failed Israeli politicians denouncing not only their nation’s current government but also the entire society that had rejected them.Just a few months ago the New York Times reported over the controversy of an Arab judge who refuses to the sing Israel's national anthem. It would seem contrary to Burg's blanket statement, non-Jews are not excluded from Israel's public spaces. So the Times doesn't even require that an op-ed columnist base his arguments on facts; even facts that are reported by the paper itself.
Given how rare it is for anyone at the Times to lament the lack of democracy of the PA, where elections are years overdue, President Abbas is fighting against free speech and the Hamas government is oppressing Christians, its phony concern for the state of Israel's democracy is beyond absurd.
Labels: Israeli democracy, Middle East Media Sampler, Mitt Romney, New York Times, Palestinian culture, Saeb Erekat, Soccer Dad
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:31 PM
1 comments
1) About that endorsement
In endorsing Barack Obama for President, the editors of the Washington Post wrote:But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.I never read Barack Obama's books, but I was never impressed that he had a "sophisticated understanding" of foreign policy.
I doubt it will sway the Post's editors but Fouad Ajami (h/t Instapundit) has written a devastating critique of the President's foreign policy, The Foreign Policy of David Axelrod:“The tide of war is receding” is one of the favorite mantras of this administration and its leaders. But what is receding before our eyes is the American influence in the world order. Mr. Obama has narrowed the horizons of a country with historically wide vistas. In the Obamian world, that which can’t be done with drones and the daring of our SEALs is left untended. In a note of exquisite irony, Barack Obama had made much of his predecessor’s poor standing in Islamic lands. Trumpet the polls, fall to them: Mr. Obama’s standing in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, is now lower than George W. Bush’s standing. A placard carried by a group of Syrian protesters tells it all: “We miss Bush’s audacity.”(Prof. Ajami wasn't critical of the President in his Washington Post article the other day. Rather he argued that President Obama and Governor Romney have different philosophies of America's role in the world. It's possible though that the "declinist" view of American power described here is a consequence of the "cosmopolitan" view described earlier.)
Now it could be that the American people have been made weary by foreign engagements, and that the economic distress—our debt, our deficits, an anemic recovery, persisting high levels of unemployment—has made us reticent in the face of burdens abroad. That would be an irony all its own—a president who mismanaged the economy being rewarded for the lack of confidence his presidency itself has generated.
From the very beginning, Mr. Obama has been a herald of a “declinist” reading of America. We can’t aid the Syrians, our touch would sully them. We can’t identity ourselves with the democratic aspirations of the Iranians, for we must conciliate their rulers. We can’t defend the cause of liberty and freedom, for in that Obamian worldview, freedom is a fragile, uncertain bet the world over.
2) Romney's culture wars
Mitt Romney's reference to the role of culture in holding Palestinian economic development back hasn't gotten good reviews in the mainstream media.
Mitt Romney's less than successful trip abroad:In London, Mr. Romney expressed doubt about Britain’s readiness to host the Olympic Games, a comment that was bush league but not very consequential. More serious was Mr. Romney’s suggestion that “culture” explains the economic disparity between Israelis and Palestinians, and (for good measure) between Mexico and the United States. His comparison left out restrictions on Palestinian trade, workers and goods imposed by Israel over many years, and, more to the point, he reflected an alarmingly simplistic view of complex questions.Why not in Vegas? by Thomas FriedmanWhile Romney had time for a $50,000-a-plate breakfast with American Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with Adelson at his elbow, he did not have two hours to go to Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, to meet with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, or to share publicly any ideas on how he would advance the peace process. He did have time, though, to point out to his Jewish hosts that Israelis are clearly more culturally entrepreneurial than Palestinians. Israel today is an amazing beehive of innovation — thanks, in part, to an influx of Russian brainpower, massive U.S. aid and smart policies. It’s something Jews should be proud of. But had Romney gone to Ramallah he would have seen a Palestinian beehive of entrepreneurship, too, albeit small, but not bad for a people living under occupation. Palestinian business talent also built the Persian Gulf states. In short, Romney didn’t know what he was talking about.Romney angers Palestinians with comments in Israel - news story in the New York Times:The remarks, which vastly understated the disparities between the societies, drew a swift rejoinder from Palestinian leaders. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks racist.All of these objections to Romney's comments ignore that Israeli restrictions were put in place for a reason (to prevent terror) and "occupation" (or, more accurately, lack of statehood) is the result of Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel.
“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” Mr. Erekat said. “It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.”
Mr. Romney did not speak to the deleterious impact of deep Israeli trade restrictions on the Palestinian economy, an effect widely described by international organizations including the World Bank, which recently reported that “the government of Israel’s security restrictions continue to stymie investment.”
But Romney isn't the first American politician to argue that the Arab political culture has a negative effect on Arab societies. Noah Pollak points out that the sophisticated Barack Obama did the exact same thing in his widely hailed Cairo speech:“But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas.”So why the difference in reactions?
He pointed out that "a woman who is denied an education is denied equality... And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous."
He added that he has "an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose...Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure."
One possibility, is that Obama's critique didn't explicitly mention the world "culture." When he used the world "culture," the context was:Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.Another is that Obama did not contrast Arab failures with Israeli's successes.
While I often don't agree with Aaron David Miller (nor do I fully agree with his essay here) he recently made a good and relevant point:But let’s be clear. The Arabs themselves have turned David into an ugly and mythical Goliath. The anti-Israeli trope goes much deeper than mere criticism of a nation-state’s behavior. Israel has been elevated to a power (backed by America) that, along with international Jewry, has the capacity to shape the world arena, if not to control it.Romney's affront to the Palestinians was to compare them to Israel; a comparison that did not work to their favor.
Labels: Arab culture, Barack Hussein Obama, campaign 2008, Campaign 2012, Middle East Media Sampler, Mitt Romney, Palestinian culture, Palestinians, Soccer Dad, US foreign policy
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:33 PM
1 comments
1) Brother Tom's traveling misinformation showI’ll make this quick. I have one question and one observation about Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel. The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Really, Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem. They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas."The Wailing Wall?" Anyone still using this term betrays a contempt not just for Israel but for JudaismThe observation is this: Much of what is wrong with the U.S.-Israel relationship today can be found in that Romney trip. In recent years, the Republican Party has decided to make Israel a wedge issue. In order to garner more Jewish (and evangelical) votes and money, the G.O.P. decided to “out-pro-Israel” the Democrats by being even more unquestioning of Israel. This arms race has pulled the Democratic Party to the right on the Middle East and has basically forced the Obama team to shut down the peace process and drop any demands that Israel freeze settlements. This, in turn, has created a culture in Washington where State Department officials, not to mention politicians, are reluctant to even state publicly what is U.S. policy — that settlements are “an obstacle to peace” — for fear of being denounced as anti-Israel.This is pure ignorance. The peace process shut down because Abbas expected Obama to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions and refused to negotiate - after rejecting an offer from previous Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - until he got those concessions. Even once Netanyahu agreed to a building freeze in Judea and Samaria, Abbas refused to negotiate until the freeze was nearly over and then made no real effort.
Of course even though the settlement freeze was unprecedented, Friedman treats it as if it were a standard aspect of Israeli-Palestinian negotations. Based on other columns, Friedman's blanket use of the term "settlements" extends also to Israeli communities that Israel is expected to keep in any peace deal.Add on top of that, the increasing role of money in U.S. politics and the importance of single donors who can write megachecks to “super PACs” — and the fact that the main Israel lobby, Aipac, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are “pro” and which are “anti-Israel” and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not — and you have a situation in which there are almost no brakes, no red lights, around Israel coming from America anymore. No wonder settlers now boast on op-ed pages that the game is over, they’ve won, the West Bank will remain with Israel forever — and they don’t care what absorbing all of its Palestinians will mean for Israel’s future as a Jewish democracy.Let's just point out that Adelson's money didn't buy Newt Gingrich the nomination. (However, an extremely pliant press made a significant contribution to Barack Obama's election four years ago. Given that the media is supposed to be adversarial, this represented a greater corruption of our political process than any amount of money. Friedman, like most of those who claim to be appalled by the corrupting influence of money in politics only object to money when his side is outspent.)
Dani Dayan's op-ed was damaging because it would be used like this. But Dayan is an interested party and his proclamation is contradicted by the fact that over 90% of Palestinians live under the Palestinian Authority. The demographic threat is non-existent now and has been non-existent since late 1995. The lack of a Palestinians state should not be equated with occupation. Conflating the two serves as a pretext for the Palestinians to refuse negotiations. Friedman and people like him do more to undermine peace in the Middle East than Jews living in Efrat or Ramat Shlomo.It is into this environment that Romney wandered to add more pandering and to declare how he will be so much nicer to Israel than big, bad Obama. This is a canard. On what matters to Israel’s survival — advanced weaponry and intelligence — Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN on Monday, “I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past.”And of course, no politician ever embellished the truth for the sake of an alliance. But there's more to Israel's security than military cooperation.While Romney had time for a $50,000-a-plate breakfast with American Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with Adelson at his elbow, he did not have two hours to go to Ramallah, the seat of th Palestinian Authority, to meet with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, or to share publicly any ideas on how he would advance the peace process. He did have time, though, to point out to his Jewish hosts that Israelis are clearly more culturally entrepreneurial than Palestinians. Israel today is an amazing beehive of innovation — thanks, in part, to an influx of Russian brainpower, massive U.S. aid and smart policies. It’s something Jews should be proud of. But had Romney gone to Ramallah he would have seen a Palestinian beehive of entrepreneurship, too, albeit small, but not bad for a people living under occupation. Palestinian business talent also built the Persian Gulf states. In short, Romney didn’t know what he was talking about.Friedman's ironic here. In a number of columns Friedman promoted the idea of "Fayyadism," arguing that unless Israel supported Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his ideas they'd never have peace. Forget for a moment that Fayyad's moderation means that he has no political base. Guess who Romney met with on his trip to Israel? Salam Fayyad! Romney was not criticized by the big bad Israel lobby but Fayyad was criticized for meeting with Romney even by an unnamed Fatah official! If Fayyad was such a big deal, why not at least acknowledge that Romney met him, instead of complaining that he didn't meet Abbas who has done absolutely nothing for peace other than not being Yasser Arafat? "Fayyadism" wasn't a serious concept, it was just a cynical excuse to criticize Israel.On peace, the Palestinians’ diplomacy has been a fractured mess, and I still don’t know if they can be a partner for a secure two-state deal with even the most liberal Israeli government. But I do know this: It is in Israel’s overwhelming interest to test, test and have the U.S. keep testing creative ideas for a two-state solution. That is what a real U.S. friend would promise to do. Otherwise, Israel could be doomed to become a kind of apartheid South Africa.In 1993 Israel agreed to the Oslo Accords and proceeded to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria. In 1996 Israel face an unprecedented wave of terror. In 2000-2001 and 2008 Israeli leaders offered peace deals that were rejected. After rejecting the 2000 offer made at Camp David, Yasser Arafat launched a terror war against Israel. After withdrawing form southern Lebanon Israel suffered as Hezbollah built up its offensive capability and started cross border attacks which got progressively worse until Israel was forced to strike back in 2006. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and the same thing happened, with Israel striking back against Hamas in 2008. What avenue of peace has Israel not pursued during these past twenty years? And which one of these efforts have brought peace closer?
Worse, last month, as he's argued before, Friedman wrote "... with the conservative Muslim Brotherhood dominating Egypt and with conservative religious-nationalists dominating Israeli politics, both will either change their behaviors to make Camp David legitimate for both peoples or it will gradually become unsustainable." In other words he believes that Israel doesn't even deserve peace with Egypt unless he satisfies the Muslim Brotherhood and that treaty has existed for over 30 years!And here is what I also know: The three U.S. statesmen who have done the most to make Israel more secure and accepted in the region all told blunt truths to every Israeli or Arab leader: Jimmy Carter, who helped forge a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt; Henry Kissinger, who built the post-1973 war disengagement agreements with Syria, Israel and Egypt; and James Baker, who engineered the Madrid peace conference. All of them knew that to make progress in this region you have to get in the face of both sides. They both need the excuse at times that “the Americans made me do it,” because their own politics are too knotted to move on their own.Carter blundered into Camp David and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is threatening to reconsider it. (AS noted above, Friedman doesn't think that Israeli deserves peace with Egypt.) What was Baker's big contribution to peace in the Middle East? The Madrid Conference. And that led to ...?So how about all you U.S. politicians — Republicans and Democrats — stop feeding off this conflict for political gain. Stop using this conflict as a backdrop for campaign photo-ops and fund-raisers. Stop making things even worse by telling the most hard-line Israelis everything that they want to hear, just to grovel for Jewish votes and money, while blatantly ignoring the other side. There are real lives at stake out there. If you’re not going to do something constructive, stay away. They can make enough trouble for themselves on their own.Americans support Israel. Thomas Friedman does not. Politicians support Israel because that is a popular position in America and the political class reflects American values. This isn't pandering. Support for Israel also isn't a "Jewish" issue, it's an American one. Given that Israel is no less hated now than it was nearly twenty years ago when it first started making concessions to make peace with the Palestinians, it is people who are paying attention to "the other side" who understand Israel's predicament. Ideologues like Friedman whose views of the Middle East are based on antagonism towards Israel pay no attention to "the other side" and demand continued unrequited commitments from Israel. Until the Palestinian political culture changes and Palestinian Media Watch has no more material to publicize, there will be no peace no matter how "creative" Israel gets.
It's hard to imagine a more toxic brew of cynicism, ignorance and venality regrading Israel in one place. It's like the editors of the New York Times commissioned an op-ed from the Washington Report and got one without the subtlety or humor that publication is usually known for.
Related thoughts from Israeli Matzav and Elder of Ziyon.
2) The nefarious Sheldon
A New York Times editorial, Mr. Romney stumps in Israel knows who to blame:The real audience for Mr. Romney’s tough talk was American Jews and evangelical Christians, some of whom accompanied him on his trip. He is courting votes and making an aggressive pitch to donors, including Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate with the hard-line pro-Israel views who is spending more money than any other American — $100 million — to defeat Mr. Obama.The editors of the New York Times may comfort themselves believing that Romney's playing for such small stakes; that only "American Jews and evangelical Christians" care about Israel and are concerned about what would happen to American ties with Israel in a sequel to the Obama administration. But Israel - in poll after poll - is clearly an American issue; not a narrow parochial one.
But what's most disturbing about the editorial, is that the editors of the New York Times have once again turned Sheldon Adelson into the bogeyman of the election. For the subtlety of the portrayal, they might as well have described him as a "rich, rapacious Jew seeking to buy the election by nefarious means," but even they might shrink from such an explicit declaration. Did it occur to them that Adelson's millions didn't buy Newt Gingrich the Republican nomination? The message, messenger and messaging are all probably more important than the millions. To be sure the millions enable the other three, but it doesn't ensure that the candidate will win.
Prior to Romney's Jerusalem speech, Fouad Ajami wrote Romney isn't out to make the world swoon:Presidential campaigns are, of course, not about truth. And a candidate’s ambitious promises are generally cast aside once he assumes the burdens of office. As a presidential candidate, John F. Kennedy, it should be recalled, promised to close the missile gap with the Soviet Union. But for the United States, there was no gap to close. It was the Soviets who were at a huge disadvantage, a paltry three scores of missiles for an American arsenal of more than 2,000. In the same vein, candidate Obama vowed to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, repair “brand America” abroad, drain anti-Americanism from the Islamic world and build trust between Pakistan and the United States.After noting some likely similarities between the Obama handles foreign affairs and a President Romney might, Ajami concludes:
But these promises have been largely forgotten in the exercise of power. Guantanamo is still open, and anti-Americanism in the Islamic world did not dissipate when Bush left the White House. In a supreme note of irony, the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which was once held up as proof of Bush’s poor standing in foreign lands, recently bore bad tidings for Obama:
“In a number of strategically important Muslim nations,” the June report says, “America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency. In fact, America’s already low 2008 ratings have slipped even further in Jordan and Pakistan.”The late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington once sketched three visions of the United States’ place in the world: nationalist, cosmopolitan and imperial. In the nationalist view, America defends her interests in the world and marks ideological borders and differences with other nations. In the cosmopolitan view, the foreign world and globalization reshape America, erasing the differences that separate it from other countries. In the imperial vision, America remakes the world by remaking foreign lands.True Ajami wrote before Governor Romney's trip but his measured tone and reasoned analysis stands out in stark contrast to the hysterical tone of the editors of the "paper of record."
An imperial push can’t be sustained; the United States lacks the resources and the drive for such grand ambitions. So we are down to a more realistic distinction. Obama embodies the cosmopolitan aspiration, and Romney the nationalist idea. We have already seen Obama’s worldview at work; it probably wouldn’t change in a second term. Romney’s stewardship would dawn without trumpets and drums. It would have the sobriety of Gerald Ford’s and George H.W. Bush’s leadership. But there would be an ideological edge, illustrated in Romney’s VFW address: “Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post — and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us and our friends.”
This is not only good prose. Compared with Obama’s ideas, it is a different view of America.
3) So was it a success?
As Prof Ajami wrote (and Charles Krauthammer wrote last week) Romney's was symbolically important as a way to demonstrate a contrast between the presumed challenger and the incumbent. But was his trip a success?
Not surprisingly according the Obama administration it was a disaster. (via memeorandum)"It is clear that the opportunity to credential his beliefs with the American voters was nothing short for Mitt Romney of an embarrassing disaster on this trip," Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs told reporters on a conference call.PowerLine (via InstaPundit) and Hot Air (again via Instapundit) note that the American media deemed the trip a disaster too. But does that mean that Romney's trip was a disaster? Or that the media more closely resembles the Obama campaign than an independent, adversarial press?
Earlier in the call, Gibbs said that the trip "Certainly didn’t prove to anyone that [Romney] passed the commander-in-chief test" and that "Particularly alongside the trip Senator Obama took in 2008, there's simply no comparison."
Gibbs also attacked Romney for not taking questions from the press; he only took three questions over the course of his trip, all at his first stop in London. Gibbs noted that Obama took over 25 questions during his trip.
Seth Mandel and James Taranto also both critique the press coverage, though more specifically about Israel.
In particular Romney was criticized for his use of the word "culture" in explaining the economic disparity between Israel and the Palestinians.The New York Times reported in Romney Trip Raises Sparks at a 2nd Stop:In the speech, Mr. Romney mentioned books that had influenced his thinking about nations — particularly “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” by David S. Landes, which, he said, argues that culture is the defining factor in determining the success of a society.It is apparently the reporters' judgment that Romney "vastly understated the disparities between the societies," as they explained later "Mr. Romney did not speak to the deleterious impact of deep Israeli trade restrictions on the Palestinian economy."
...
He added, “As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000, and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality. And that is also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador, Mexico and the United States.”
The remarks, which vastly understated the disparities between the societies, drew a swift rejoinder from Palestinian leaders. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks racist.
But as David Landes's son Richard writes:I like that “sensitive part of the world.” Of course the Palestinians will take issue with what Romney said, but maybe they should be thinking about whether or not it was true. In typical Palestinian style, they prefer to blame “the occupation” no matter how hollow the argument (on the contrary, having Israel as their foe has brought significant economic opportunities, not to mention huge sums of foreign aid their way). Granted the barriers and restrictions hinder the Palestinians, but they surely should take some responsibility for that; after all, the Israelis never would have built the separation barrier were it not for Palestinian terrorism.Barry Rubin adds:Now here’s the problem: If Palestinians deny that there’s a problem they cannot resolve the problem. Failure to acknowledge that there is a real difference is disastrous for the Palestinians. Insisting on the very ideas responsible for that difference is catastrophic.Many of those who mistakenly claim that Romney was taking Obama's "You didn't built that" comment out of context are more than willing to misconstrue Romney's reference to culture here. They are less interested in advancing the cause of peace or, at least, coexistence than they are in shielding the Palestinians from their own failures.
When Romney refers to “culture” he’s not referring to literature and music but to what is usually called “political culture.” And Romney uses the precise same criteria when he’s talking about America. Democracy, individual liberty, free enterprise, and the rule of law are among the ingredients necessary for success of any society.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Middle East Media Sampler, Mitt Romney, New York Times, Palestinian culture, Salam Fayyad, Sheldon Adelson, Soccer Dad, Tom Friedman
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:52 PM
0 comments
In his famous 2009 “Speech to the Muslim World” in Cairo, [Obama] said:Heh.
“But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas.”
He pointed out that "a woman who is denied an education is denied equality... And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous."
He added that he has "an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose...Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure."
Two years later, in another speech (this one on the Arab Spring), he told the U.S.-Islamic World Forum:
"Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas."
Maybe Obama has read the same fine David Landes book that Romney cited – which discusses the importance to a healthy economy of women’s empowerment. Why might we think this? Because Obama said:
"History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered… The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential."
Reading all this, one might even conclude that Obama has been quite a bit more critical of Arab societies than Romney has. One trusts it isn’t racist to point that out.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney, Palestinian culture, Palestinian economy
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:45 AM
0 comments
The 'Palestinian police' shut down a New Year's eve party in Ramallah because it featured Mike Sharif, an Israeli Druse singer who is popular throughout the Arab world. Sharif was raised in a village in the North and is one of the popular singers not only among Israeli Arabs but throughout the Arab world. He started his career as a singer at the age of seven.I am sure we will have plenty of 'Palestinian' apologists who will tell us why the 'Palestinians' must behave this way. But here's the bottom line: They have don't show even the smallest sign of being interested in peace, and no one is going to make peace with them anytime soon.
The Palestinians were angered by the fact that Sharif was presented as an Israeli and that some of his songs were in Hebrew. Some said it was unacceptable that Israelis songs would be sung in Ramallah on the third anniversary of Operation Cast Lead. Others said they didn’t like the fact that a member of the Druse community, whose sons serve in the IDF, would appear at a party in Ramallah.
PA policemen raided the hall where the party was supposed to take place and ordered the owners to cancel Sharif’s appearance, eyewitnesses said.
The organizers of the event were forced to replace the Druse singer with another performer.
Labels: Palestinian culture
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:53 PM
1 comments
In yet another indication that Turkey isn't going to become our best friend anytime soon, there was a 'Palestinian culture' week held in Istanbul from July 21-30.The 4th Palestine Culture Week is getting under way Thursday in two Turkish cities, İstanbul and the southeastern city of Şanlıurfa, news agencies reported on Wednesday.I wonder if this sort of 'culture' was included. If not, it must have been the shortest show on earth.
A series of cultural events aimed at strengthening ties between Turks and Palestinians and introducing the culture of Palestine to the Turkish public, Palestine Culture Week is a joint effort between the Palestinian Embassy in Ankara and the Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TİKA), the Anatolia news agency reported.
Running July 21-30, the 10-day program is taking place for the fourth time this year. Venues that will host events as part of the culture week’s İstanbul leg include the open-air theater in Sultanahmet and Taksim Square. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki is expected to attend the events in both cities, Anatolia said.
Labels: Istanbul, Palestinian culture, Turkish obsession with Israel
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:54 PM
0 comments
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
