Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday April 15:
1) Where are those moderate Islamists?
At a conference at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Prof. Jeffrey Herf goes past the panelists to as the moderator, New York Times reporter, Scott Shane, why his newspaper fails to report on the antisemitism of the Muslim Brotherhood. Shane can't give a coherent answer, but mumbles something about such sentiments not being newsworthy because they're so prevalent. (h/t Challah Hu Akbar) It doesn't explain why, when having a chance to deal with the related topic of Palestinian anti-Israel incitement, New York Times reporter, Isabel Kershner downplayed the issue.
Former New York Times reporter, Joel Brinkley - now years removed from his reporting - concludes that the Islamist parties in Egypt and Tunisia (contrary to a recent Washington Post editorial) are not at all moderate. (h/t Legal Insurrection):
Ever since Islamists took office in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, they have been trying to convince us that they are advocates of moderation, democracy, women's rights and individual freedoms. And most people in the West, after jubilantly watching the Arab Spring's amazing revolutions last year, wanted to believe them.
But now we can see that these Islamic groups are taking us for fools…
I especially liked this example:
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised that it would not field a candidate for president. But this month it went back on its word and put Khairat al-Shater, a wealthy businessman, on the ballot.
Defending that broken promise, one Muslim Brotherhood leader after another explained that they changed their mind to save Egypt's budding democracy, in jeopardy now because of the military's reluctance to step aside.
If that is so, how do you explain the speech Shater gave in Alexandria last year in which he disparaged the whole idea of Western democracy and its social conventions, calling them the enemy of Islam - including the concept of elections, even though he is now running in one. Voting for your leader, he said, is un-Islamic.
Al-Shater's anti-democracy speech (and other anti-Western ideas) were studiously avoided in two recent profiles of him in the New York Times.
For now the Al-Shater and two other candidates have been disqualified from running for president of Egypt.
Egypt's volatile presidential race was jolted Saturday when the election commission disqualified three controversial front-runners — the nation's former spy chief and two impassioned Islamists — just five weeks before voters go to the polls.
The commission removed Omar Suleiman, the intelligence director under deposed President Hosni Mubarak; Khairat Shater, a leading voice for the ascendant Muslim Brotherhood; and Hazem Salah abu Ismail, an ultraconservative Salafi Islamist with wide populist appeal. Seven other candidates were also expelled, and appeals were expected.
...
The disqualifications of the leading contenders revive the chances of Moussa and others, including former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik. Anticipating Shater would be expelled from the race, the Brotherhood had entered a second candidate, Mohamed Morsi, head of its Freedom and Justice Party. The other notable Islamist is Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, a moderate and former Brotherhood member.
Unsurprisingly, the Brotherhood is appealing the decision.
Given the remaining candidates, it doesn't really appear that disqualifying these three will make much difference. Perhaps the reason for the disqualifications was to eliminate the candidates most likely to alarm the United States or the West.
In February Barry Rubin wrote:
There are three serious Islamist candidates, and they have few differences between them: Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, and Muhammad Salim al-Awa. The Brotherhood likes Aboul Fotouh, a high-ranking official who resigned from the group to run for president. Presumably the Salafists will back one of the other two, perhaps more likely Abu Ismail. Al-Awa is a long-time collaborator with al-Qaradawi, but the powerful cleric gave Aboul Fotouh the nod as the more electable candidate.
...
The only strong alternative to these men is Amr Moussa, the radical nationalist former foreign minister and Arab League head. He is simultaneously an experienced diplomat and pragmatist, a rabble-rousing populist, and a strongly anti-American, anti-Israel figure. He is the great hope for a more pragmatic though still radical regime.
But he is no threat to the Islamists. If he is elected president in June, he will be 76 not long after. The Brotherhood could easily rationalize the idea that he is a transitional figure. By the time the second election is held, projected for 2018, the Islamists would be ready to put their own man into office.
It will be an Islamist now or in the near future running Egypt.
Itzchak Levanon surveyed the shifting political landscape in Egypt during the past year and looked at implications for the future regarding Egyptian relations with Israel.
I believe that there should have been reciprocity during the Mubarak regime. Israeli ambassadors did not have free access to ministries, to parties, were banned by the media, were banned by all the unions, while in Israel the Egyptian ambassador is invited to meet with the top level, including the prime minister, and the media quotes him. I think we should be discussing this issue at the highest level with the Egyptians after things settle down.
In some respects, the situation prevailing before the revolution and today has basically not changed much. There are still security contacts at the upper levels between Israel and Egypt, and this is because there is an interest on both sides, but there are no bilateral relations. I do not understand why, after more than seven months since the September 9, 2011, attack on its embassy, Israel is not allowed to have an embassy in Cairo. From time to time, we hear some reassuring statements by officials that Egypt is committed to its international agreements. But with the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood in power today, such statements are not enough.
...
At this point, I believe that the peace treaty is safe. The military is in power and they support peace between Israel and Egypt. The army supports the treaty because they understand that canceling it is not in the interest of Egypt. Secondly, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt has three legs; the third leg is the United States. This is why I think the peace treaty is safe, more or less, at this particular time. However, uncertainty about the future raises real concerns. With the new situation where there are extremist ideologies which have entered the political game, it would be wise at this early stage to explain to the Egyptian public that the alternative to peace is a nightmare that we should all avoid.
2) The second myth
In a recent column, The Three Myths that Distort Every Discussion of Israel and the Middle East, Barry Rubin discusses the second myth:
The concerted international campaign by various groups in the West against Israel damages it and helps the Palestinians. Again, this should be obviously true--that the tireless anti-Israel propaganda campaign materially damages Israel--but the truth is quite the opposite. To date, despite all the noise, Israeli interests—including businesses—have suffered little damage. On the contrary, the attacks encourage support, including increased buying of Israeli products and energetic loyalty by Israel’s supporters abroad. But all of these endless demonstrations, teach-ins, books, articles, documentaries, boycott, disinvestment, and sanction labors do absolutely zero to help the Palestinians. On one level, they do nothing politically to advance their cause in a real way. On another level, they contribute nothing to their welfare.
Moreover, by convincing the Palestinian leadership that they can eliminate Israel completely, that Western support is swinging toward them, and that they don’t need to change their own policies or strategies, all of this behavior leads them charging down a dead-end street at the end of which it collides with a stone wall.
By encouraging the Palestinians and Arabs to fight in order to destroy Israel, when they cannot win, their well-wishes cause them to lose the two-state solution, which is indeed available to them, and to throw away years of time, millions of dollars, and thousands of lives.
The New York Times provides an excellent exhibit of how this phony encouragement backfires. As the Palestinian effort to gain acceptance of its unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) started to gain momentum, the Times offered PA President Abbas an op-ed, The Long Overdue Palestinian State. Aside from his dubious history Abbas wrote:
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
Rather than accede to the provisions of the Oslo Accords or any established peace making protocols, Abbas here threatened to to pursue legal action against Israel violating the spirit, if not the letter of previous agreements. This did not elicit a single word of outrage from the editors of the New York Times.
However the New York Times had other concerns.
In September, a news article, Beyond Cairo, Israel Sensing a Wider Siege in the Times began:
With its Cairo embassy ransacked, its ambassador to Turkey expelled and the Palestinians seeking statehood recognition at the United Nations, Israel found itself on Saturday increasingly isolated and grappling with a radically transformed Middle East where it believes its options are limited and poor.
An editorial, Israel and New York's Ninth District stated:
Mr. Netanyahu should be worried that his country is more isolated now than when he took office. That isolation will deepen so long as negotiations remain stalemated.
And the Middle East expert of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, opined in Israel - adrift in sea alone:
Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.
Note that none of these articles acknowledged the truth that it was Abbas not Netanyahu who refused to negotiate or moderate his positions. For all the crocodile tears shed by the New York Times about Israel's supposed isolation (a charge refuted by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren in the Washington Post,) things have worked out pretty well for Israel and even for Prime Minister Netanyahu.
In early March a New York Times article, illustrated by an inflamatory and irrelevant picture, Mideast Din drowns out Palestinians reported:
“The biggest challenge we face — apart from occupation — is marginalization,” Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, said in an interview. “This is a direct consequence of the Arab Spring where people are preoccupied with their own domestic affairs. The United States is in an election year and has economic problems, Europe has its worries. We’re in a corner.”
The UDI turned out to be a stunt that achieved nothing. And as Shmuel Rosner ruefully observed a month earlier:
Many of Israel’s allies appear to dislike Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some — including Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and, it has been rumored, President Barack Obama — also entertain fantasies about seeing him replaced. Yet the next election, whenever it is, will probably make clear that, like it or not, Netanyahu is the only viable candidate for the job.
The New York Times is one of many institutions to sell illusions to the Palestinians. But even the New York Times implicitly recognizes that nothing has been accomplished by its campaign to make Israel cede more and get nothing in return.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Egyptian elections, Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Middle East Media Sampler, myth of moderate Islam, New York Times, Soccer Dad, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Peres in Davos offers 'Palestinians' a 'state' without 'negotiations'
At the World economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, Israel's first astronaut, Shimon Peres, told the 'Palestinians' that
they already have their 'state' and therefore there is no need for 'negotiations.'
During a discussion on the chances for peace in the Middle East, Peres praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad for their state-building efforts, including the establishment of an independent military force.
State-building is possible without negotiations, the president told the panel, which included Fayyad.
Peres has also decided that he is a Talmudic scholar.
According to the president, Israel has a historic duty to make peace with the Palestinians, in accordance with that he referred to as the Jewish tradition which does not allow Jews to rule over other people.
The solution, Peres said, was two states for two peoples.
Peres has obviously never learned the book of Joshua, where the Jewish people ruled over the people of Givon and made them tree cutters and water bearers.
Fayyad said during the discussion that state-building and negotiations were equally important. "The political process since the Oslo Accords wasn't focused enough," he said, adding that the international community should intervene in the process. "Look at us, we are struggling just to sit (at the negotiation table). It's time we recognize the process has failed," Fayyad said.
Peres disagreed, saying the process should focus on direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. He said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not a global issue.
The Oslo Accords did not call for a 'Palestinian state' (in fact, in his last Knesset speech before his assassination, Yitzchak Rabin promised again that there would not be one) and did not in any way restrict Israel's right to build in Area C.
Peres has never won an election in this country and it is doubtful that he could even be elected dog catcher. He has no right or authority to make commitments on Israel's behalf.
It's time to deal with reality as it is and not as Shimon Peres imagines it. What could go wrong?
Labels: Davos Conference, direct talks, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Salam Fayyad, Shimon Peres, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, January 24.
1) What the Diehl?
Lately Jackson Diehl has been one of the better analysts of the Middle East. His most recent, Turkey's government is the new normal in the Middle East, unfortunately, was disappointing. Diehl started off by blasting former Republican presidential candidate, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.
Perry responded: “Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists . . .”
Islamic terrorists? This, mind you, is about a government that has just stationed an advanced radar on its territory that could be used to track and shoot down missiles from Iran; that joined the NATO operation against Moammar Gaddafi in Libya; that has become the host of the opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; and that, having repeatedly won free democratic elections, amended Turkey’s constitution to expand rights for women, ethnic minorities and unions.
...
The reality is that, like it or not, “Islamist-oriented” governments are about to become the new normal in a region dominated for decades by secular autocrats and pro-American generals. So the crude bias about Muslim movements that is baked into the worldview of many U.S. conservatives — that they are inevitably fundamentalist, anti-democratic, anti-Israel and anti-American, if not explicitly “terrorist” — has become a serious liability. If heeded, it will make it impossible for this administration and future ones to navigate the region’s new politics and preserve crucial alliances.
Left out, of course, is that Turkey aided the IHH, an international terrorist organization with the Mavi Marmara, which led to a clash with Israel. Here's how the The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center describes the relationship between the government of Turkey and the IHH. (.pdf)
1) In the political-strategic realm, the Erdogan regime collaborates closely with IHH.Their collaboration is based on a common Islamic worldview, the concept that IHH can be used as a tool to implement Turkish foreign policy and IHH's readiness to serve the current government's strategy of turning Turkey into an influential regional power, including at the expense of its relations with Israel. That strategy was manifested by the political and practical support received by Hamas (the transfer of funds and other aid to Hamas, support for convoys and flotillas, and hosting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood activities on Turkish soil.
2) In the realm of internal Turkish politics, IHH is a socio-political powerbase for the AKP, Turkey's ruling party and, according to several reports, helped it get elected. Their close relations have led to the AKP's appointing senior members of IHH to government positions, (about a quarter of the IHH senior leadership holds or held positions or were candidates for AKP positions!). The AKP gave the flotilla propaganda and moral support and the Turkish media also reported that AKP parliament members intended to board the Mavi Marmara. However their participation was canceled at the last minute.
3) On the personal level, IHH leader Bülent Yildirim maintains close relations with the heads of the Turkish regime and is warmly supported by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. According to statements from passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara, corroborated by ITIC information, the flotilla set out with Erdogan's full knowledge and agreement, despite the fact that it was clear Israel would not allow the flotilla to reach the Gaza Strip.
Perhaps Perry overstated the case a bit, but he wasn't far off. The problem is that just because Islamists are the "new normal" doesn't make that development a good thing. It's one thing saying that the government needs to deal with a new reality; it's another to do as President Obama did and embrace that reality as a positive development.
Yesterday Robert Satloff and Eric Trager outlined How the U.S. Should Handle the Islamist Rise in Egypt.
Yet Washington has assets to preserve its equities in Egypt. At $1.2 billion, U.S. military assistance is essentially the procurement budget for the Egyptian armed forces. While the Islamists may want the military out of politics, they also don't want to be accused of materially weakening the country. Direct U.S. economic support is much smaller, at $250 million, but America has a substantial voice in international financial institutions to which Egypt almost surely will turn for help. In the coming period, when Egypt's Islamist politicians will test just how far the U.S. will bend to accommodate a new political reality, the U.S. should be willing to use both these tools to advance its interests.
Washington's message to Cairo's emerging leaders should be that U.S. support -- both direct and indirect -- is conditional on their cooperation in maintaining peace with Israel and preserving political pluralism and religious and minority rights. America should determine its relationship based on what Egypt's new rulers actually do on these issues, not the cooing sounds that their English-language spokesmen offer visiting American journalists, diplomats and politicians.
It isn't clear that this will work, but Satloff and Trager tell the administration to take a skeptical approach to the Islamists. That's a far cry from what Obama has done as he (if Turkey is any guide) embraced them uncritically.
2) The continuing Palestinian diplomatic war against Israel
In his op-ed in the New York Times last year, The long overdue Palestinian state, Mahmoud Abbas clearly expressed his intent for dealing with Israel.
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
Abbas's attempt to get support for statehood from the UN fizzled. However his effort to use the UN to wage diplomatic war against Israel is continuing. Jonathan Schanzer and David Barnett write in The Palestinian Campaign to Delegitimize Israel:
Specifically, Abbas is threatening to form a political union with rival faction Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip. Palestinians view unity as a necessary step toward independence, so his rhetoric has been very popular on the "Palestinian street." But the likelihood of a merger is unlikely. Rather, the PLO is using the prospect of a government partially constituted by unrepentant terrorists to pressure Israel into making concessions.
The message is simple: If the Israelis don't give the PLO what it wants, it could join hands with Hamas, which repeatedly refuses to renounce "armed resistance," making it virtually impossible for Israel to achieve the peace that it craves.
...
With all of these moving parts, it's easy to lose sight of the big picture: Palestinian leaders seem to have no interest in talking to Israel this year. Instead, they may be gearing up for a full-scale diplomatic campaign to delegitimize it.
What's astonishing is that Abbas is carrying out a campaign - that he publicly outlined in a prestigious American newspaper - to avoid negotiations with Israel and it has elicited no outrage. Netanyahu is still the obstacle to peace and to the Secretary of Defense, both sides won't come to the "damn table."
Abbas's refusal to negotiate is exacerbated by his embrace of Hamas, which is a rejection of the PLO's disavowal of terror, a premise of the very peace negotiations that are now "stalled." Peace won't come to the Middle East as long as Abbas's obstructionism is tolerated and encouraged.
Labels: Egypt, IHH, Middle East Media Sampler, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Soccer Dad, Turkey, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Diplomacy that's anything but diplomatic
Jonathan Schanzer looks at the 'Palestinian Authority's
undiplomatic diplomacy.
As it turns out, Abbas has been regrouping. On January 1, several countries that would have voted against the Palestinian bid rotated off the Security Council, making way for Guatemala, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Morocco and Togo. Notwithstanding the looming threat of a U.S. veto, these states afford the Palestinians new opportunities in the diplomatic battles that are likely to unfold this year. And Palestinians have been vague about the General Assembly option, which is still a viable one.
The Palestinians may have other strategies in store, too.
Senior Fatah official Nabil Sha’ath recently said on Palestinian radio that 2012 “will be the start of an unprecedented diplomatic campaign on the part of the Palestinian leadership, and it will be a year of pressure on Israel that will put it under a real international siege. The campaign will be similar to the one waged against apartheid in South Africa.”
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has been the official negotiating partner for the Israelis since the late 1990s, is already bringing pressure to bear.
Specifically, Abbas is threatening to form a political union with rival faction Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip. Palestinians view unity as a necessary step toward independence, so his rhetoric has been very popular on the “Palestinian street.” But the likelihood of a merger is unlikely. Rather, the PLO is using the prospect of a government partially constituted by unrepentant terrorists to pressure Israel into making concessions.
The message is simple: If the Israelis don’t give the PLO what it wants, it could join hands with Hamas, which repeatedly refuses to renounce “armed resistance,” making it virtually impossible for Israel to achieve the peace that it craves.
And while the recent outreach to Hamas may be a bluff rather than an earnest attempt to foster a strategic partnership, it is increasingly clear that Abbas and company are less inclined to fight the terrorist group that disrupted the peace process of the 1990s with suicide bombings. Rather, they are happy to use Hamas as leverage for their demands.
With all of these moving parts, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture: Palestinian leaders seem to have no interest in talking to Israel this year. Instead, they may be gearing up for a full-scale diplomatic campaign to delegitimize it.
It's worse than that. After the elections in November, the Obama administration won't use that veto in Israel's favor in the Security Council anymore.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations Security Council
'Palestinians' plan to go back to Security Council
Ben Birnbaum reports from Ramallah that the 'Palestinians' are planning to return to the UN Security Council in a bid for
'statehood' without negotiations.
Mr. Saidam and other Palestinian officials told The Washington Times that, barring a last-minute development Thursday, the U.N. campaign would begin anew.
A return to the U.N. would rile the U.S., which has vowed to veto the Palestinian application for membership in the Security Council. The U.S. was spared the headache of a veto in September because the Palestinians failed to gain a nine-vote majority.
“We got 8 3/4,” Mr. Saidam said.
The entire U.N. campaign has attained great symbolism here. A giant blue chair bearing the words “Palestine’s Right: Full Membership in the United Nations” still sits in Ramallah’s central square.
A wall of Mr. Abbas‘ presidential compound features a giant photo of him holding up the Palestinian application during his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.
...
But the U.N. campaign is just one aspect of what many Palestinian officials describe as the “South Africanization” of their struggle — an approach that seeks to isolate Israel diplomatically while engaging in mass nonviolent protests.
“We can learn from the South African struggle against apartheid that international activism works,” said Nabeel Shaath, Fatah’s commissioner for international relations. “You don’t really have to shoot in order to get your rights.”
Mr. Shaath said it was “absolutely” a mistake for Palestinians to militarize the second intifada — the 2000-2005 uprising that claimed about 4,000 Palestinian and 1,000 Israeli lives amid suicide bombings and Israeli military strikes.
“I have no qualms about telling you, yes, it was [a mistake],” Mr. Shaath said. “It was not supposed to have gone military, and it did get out of hand. We are much more careful this time around.”
Mr. Saidam, the Abbas adviser, posited that a third uprising could be “an electronic intifada,” citing this week’s hacking attack on Israel’s stock exchange and national airline, as well as Facebook campaigns calling for the boycott of Israeli goods.
“When I talk about a third intifada, I’m not advocating, nor am I anticipating, a repetition of the scenes of the past,” he said. “It will be a clever, more technology-based approach.”
Mr. Saidam and others said their pessimism about the peace process springs from their belief that Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government is not as serious about peace as its center-left predecessor.
The 'Palestinians' can't say this now, but if Obama wins, I don't think anyone believes he'll use that veto after January 20, 2013 except for the delusional American Jews.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations Security Council
Insanity...
"Insanity," Albert Einstein is known to have quipped "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." By that definition,
the Middle East Quartet is insane.
The Quartet issued yet another call for direct Israeli-Palestinian talks “without delay or preconditions” following separate meetings its envoys had Wednesday in Jerusalem with Palestinian and Israeli officials.
This is the third time the Quartet has held such meetings in Jerusalem, and put out a similar statement, since September 23, when it issued a framework for returning to talks and when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas went to the UN to ask for recognition of a Palestinian state.
That framework called for an initial meeting between the two sides within 30 days, leading to the trading of comprehensive proposals on security and territory within three months, and an overall agreement by the end of 2012.
Even that first direct meeting never took place, because of a Palestinian refusal to enter talks until Israel froze all construction beyond the Green Line and agreed to negotiate on the basis of the pre-1967 lines. Instead, Quartet envoys and representative Tony Blair have come for separate talks with the sides about once a month.
...
The wording of the statement seemed to support Israel’s interpretation that the comprehensive security and territorial proposals were to come about through direct negotiations between the sides, and not be presented separately to the Quartet by the parties.
In a break from the past two meetings the Quartet envoys have held here, this time the envoys did not meet with Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat – who was in Brussels – but with a lowerlevel Palestinian official. On the Israeli side, they met, as usual, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s envoy Yitzhak Molcho.
Earlier this week, the Palestinians rejected an Israeli call to use Wednesday’s Quartet visit as a time for Molcho and Erekat to begin direct talks.
“If the Palestinian side continues to refuse to negotiate to solve problems to move the peace process forward, then this raises serious questions as to their seriousness and to their commitment to a negotiated peace,” said Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev.
Yes, of course. So then why does the Quartet continue to insist on trying to do this? Maybe it's time to tell the 'Palestinians' that they are giving up and that when the 'Palestinians' are ready to come to the table, they should call?
What could go wrong?
Labels: direct talks, Middle East quartet, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Second part of Shalit deal won't include terrorists
At least someone in Israel has gotten some common sense. The 'Palestinians' to be released by Israel on December 18 as part of the terrorists for Gilad deal will not include any 'gestures' to the 'Palestinian Authority.' They will be
petty thieves and other minor criminals.
Under the Egyptian-mediated prisoner swap in October that led to Schalit’s release, 477 “heavy” security prisoners and terrorists whose names were agreed upon by Israel and Hamas were released in the first stage of the deal. Another 550 prisoners, of Israel’s choosing, will be released in the second stage, expected to take place on December 18.
Numerous calls from world leaders have come into Jerusalem urging Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to use the opportunity to release Fatah prisoners and build up Abbas’s stature on the Palestinian street. Because of Abbas’s continued refusal to enter into direct talks with Israel – unless Jerusalem stops all construction beyond the Green Line – those entreaties are for the most part falling on deaf ears.
“We will release car thieves, not make any gestures to Abbas,” one government official said. He said that the list of prisoners to be released is being drawn up by the Justice Ministry, and will be approved by the Prime Minister’s Office.
Government sources said that with Abbas continuing to stay away from the talks and waging an aggressive diplomatic campaign against Israel throughout the world, there is no reason at his point to reward him with any goodwill gestures.
You can bet that under Olmert they would have released heavy Fatah terrorists. And in fact, Abu Mazen tried to claim that Olmert offered him just that. Thankfully, it looks like (as of now), for once, Abu Mazen will not be getting something for nothing.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, terrorists for Gilad trade, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Confirmed: Merkel blackmailed Netanyahu
An Israeli official has confirmed a
report in a German newspaper that German Chancellor Angela Merkel
threatened to cancel an Israeli order for a Dolphin class submarine unless Israel turned over tax money to the 'Palestinian Authority.'
"The [submarine] was the icing on the cake Israel received for agreeing to the European request [to transfer the funds]," the official said.
On Sunday, German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with the halting of a German plan to deliver a submarine to Israel if the latter refused to resume the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority.
According to the report, Israel yielded to pressure from Berlin and unfroze the funds. Immediately after, a German government official announced her country would build and pay up to one-third of the cost of a sixth Dolphin-class submarine to be delivered to the Israeli navy.
...
Welt am Sonntag reported that German deputies were confidentially informed by the Merkel administration that delivery of the sixth Dolphin was put on hold because of Netanyahu’s settlement policies.
According to the German paper, the Merkel administration “informed the heads of parties (Bundestag) and leading foreign politicians that Israel made concessions.”
The paper cited unnamed deputies from the governing coalition who said that there was never a serious attempt to use the Dolphin as leverage over Israel.
Welt am Sonntag wrote that a second theory is also “plausible” in terms of the delivery of the Dolphin to Israel.
The paper cited Iran’s “new aggression” last week, which culminated in the storming of Britain’s Embassy on Tuesday by the Basij militia controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
When the
euro collapses, will anyone care what the Germans think any more? They might. Germany may be the only country left standing in Europe.
Labels: Angela Merkel, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dolphin class submarines, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Palestinian tax transfers, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
And again: PA rejects direct talks with Israel
The 'Palestinian Authority' has given its answer to Leon Panetta: Once again it has
rejected direct talks with Israel.
The Palestinian Authority reiterated Sunday its opposition to holding direct peace talks with Israel and pointed out that the Quartet members – the US, EU, UN and Russia – had called for separate negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The PA’s announcement came in response to remarks by US State Department spokesman Mark Toner, who said last Friday that Israel and the Palestinians must start direct talks before there can be any negotiation on borders and security.
Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat expressed surprise at Washington’s call for direct talks.
He said that the Quartet called last September for separate talks with the two parties, during which Israel and the Palestinians would present their positions on security and borders.
Erekat said that the Palestinians have since complied with the Quartet’s demands and presented their positions on the two issues.
“Now the spokesman of the US State Department is talking about face-to-face talks, but this is contrary to what the Quartet had requested,” Erekat told the Jerusalem-based Al-Quds daily newspaper.
The PLO official said that the Palestinians would agree to face-to-face talks only when Israel halts all settlement construction and accepts the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.
And the 'Palestinian Authority' is trying to do the most important thing of all: Avoid the blame for the talks' failure.
“The Americans are trying to put the blame on the Palestinians for the continued stalemate in the peace process, ignoring the fact that the Palestinian Authority has been cooperative with the Quartet’s efforts,” said one official. “How can the Obama administration call for direct talks in contradiction to the position of the Quartet?” Another PA official claimed that the presidential elections in the US were a major factor in Obama’s decision to refrain from exerting any pressure on the Israeli government.
Aren't you glad that Obama is leading the quartet from behind? What could go wrong?
Labels: direct talks, Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Germany blackmailed Netanyahu
I used to have a client who had a fair amount of business in Germany who was constantly referring to the Germans as Nazis - even to their faces. It used to grate on me - not because I had sympathy for the Nazis God forbid - but because the type of behavior the Nazis espoused seemed so far in the past and so unrelated to the genteel businessmen (all men) sitting across the table from us.
Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu caved in and
resumed 'tax transfers' to the 'Palestinian Authority.' The transfers had been suspended in response to the PA's negotiations with Hamas and its unilateralism at the United Nations. It seemed like yet another flip flop by a Prime Minister who talks big but folds like a piece of paper. But it wasn't.
Netanyahu was blackmailed.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with the halting of a German plan to deliver a submarine to Israel if the latter refused to resume the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported on Sunday.
According to the report, Jerusalem yielded to pressure from Berlin and unfroze the funds. Shortly afterward, a German government official announced her country would build and pay up to one-third of the cost of a sixth Dolphin-class submarine to be delivered to the Israeli navy.
The agreement in principle to provide the Dolphin-class submarine, which foreign reports say enhances Israel’s second strike capability since it can carry nuclear warheads, comes a month after reports that Germany was reconsidering the deal because of anger at the announcement of plans to build some 1,100 housing units in the capital’s Gilo neighborhood, over the Green Line.
The German official said she did not know whether those reports were accurate. She said Germany will pay up to 135 million euros toward the submarine, which will cost between 372m. and 520m. euros.
Talks on the deal for the sub stalled last year after the Germans declined to underwrite it, as they had done with previous submarine purchases.
What's unmentioned here is that the submarine's construction will provide a huge boost to Germany's shipbuilding industry, which has been in serious financial straits.
Nazis.
Labels: Angela Merkel, Binyamin Netanyahu, Dolphin class submarines, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Palestinian tax transfers, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Europeans offer Abu Bluff a free pass
At Monday's meeting in Ramallah, Jordan's King Abdullah passed on a new European proposal to resume 'negotiations' to
'moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen. The plan - if in fact the Europeans have agreed to it - is a complete sellout, and Abu Mazen would be a fool not to take it. But he probably won't take it anyway. After all, it would
offend his honor....
Jordan's King Abdullah has presented Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a document that includes a European initiative for resuming negotiations with Israel, the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper reported.
The initiative calls on the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table even without a settlement freeze in exchange for an EU promise to support the Palestinian UN bid, if negotiations fail within the next year.
That "if" should read "when." Abu Bluff gets to sit at the table and concede nothing, while the US pushes Israel to bargain with itself. And at the end of the year, we can all hope and pray that the US will use its veto in the Security Council, because the Euroweenies will all vote for a 'Palestinian state.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
'Palestinians' cry 'uncle'
Feeling the pain of having their funding cut off, the 'Palestinians' have offered to
suspend all efforts to join the United Nations if the United States and Israel restore funding to the 'Palestinian Authority.'
According to a European diplomat whom the PA had updated about the proposal, the PA plans to complete the process of trying to get full UN membership for Palestine recognized by the Security Council. PA President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to ask for a vote by the end of December, although the move is doomed to defeat. Even if the Palestinians muster enough votes, the United States will veto it.
Other than that, however, the Palestinians are prepared to suspend their efforts to achieve full membership in such agencies as the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization, the diplomat said. Nor will they ask the General Assembly to upgrade their observer status to non-member observer state.
Though the Palestinians offered to temporarily suspend these UN efforts, if a deal is struck that restores the PA's cash flow, it is thought such moves will be stopped for the foreseeable future.
Israeli sources confirmed that Molho had met with the U.S. officials in London, while a British source said Molcho also met with a senior Arab figure.
While the Americans view the PA proposal positively, it isn't clear whether Israel will agree to it. Israel is still refusing to transfer the approximately $100 million in taxes it collected for the PA in October.
During an inner cabinet meeting on Monday, Netanyahu had planned to pass a decision to release the funds, but he backed down in the face of opposition from several ministers.
I wouldn't do this deal unless the 'Palestinians' (a) withdraw their bid to join the United Nations, (b) withdraw from UNESCO, (c) drop the unity talks with Hamas (which will just lead to another suspension of funds), and (d) suspend the efforts to join the UN at least so long as their funding continues.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, UNESCO, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, November 11.
1) Did you hear the one about?
Yes, this is an actual headline: Pope meets with rabbi, imam and Druse, members of new initiative to promote peace in Holy Land:
Sheikh Muaffaq Tarif, leader of Israel’s Druze community, said he hoped Thursday’s audience would serve as an example to leaders around the world. The Druse religion is a secretive offshoot of Islam; the Druse within Israel are well integrated into society, serving as ministers, lawmakers and army generals.
While the council is represented by most of the main faiths present in the Holy Land, including the Anglican Church, there is no Greek Orthodox representation due to Orthodox-Catholic tensions, council members said.
In addition, the two most significant Islamic groups in Israel aren’t represented: the conservative Southern Islamic Movement and its more radical breakaway stepchild, the Northern Islamic Movement. It’s not clear how large either group is, but between them, they represent a fair indicator of popular religious Muslim sentiment in Israel.
According to Wikipedia, both the Southern and Northern Islamic movements are Israeli equivalents of the Muslim Brotherhood. The tone of the report seems to be that the absence of these groups is a blow to the efforts of the Pope to encourage peace. The truth is that they are not much interested in peace.
2) Down under
Iranian's are fleeing to ... Australia.
The journey for migrants from Iran to Australia is long, expensive and dangerous. Officials said this month that all eight people who drowned when an Australia-bound boat of asylum seekers capsized in Indonesian waters were Iranian.
Unlike Afghans, who until recently made up the largest group of asylum seekers and are mostly rural villagers, the recent Iranian arrivals tend to be well-educated, often secular or Christian and uncomfortable in a politically restrictive, theocratic Muslim state.
“The only reason they are putting their lives in such a huge danger to come through the boats or through the ocean or whatever is just because of the shocking situation in Iran,” said Nicky Danesh, a refugee and women’s rights activist who fled Iran for Europe with her family shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
3) Define "strong"
From Ahead of Vote, Egypt’s Parties and Skepticism Are Growing in the New York Times:
Mr. Kamel is running for the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, among the strongest liberal groups with its mix of Muslims and Coptic Christians, which argues seriously that Egypt might emulate Sweden. The rally played on nostalgia for better days by not starting with the current martial national anthem, but a more romantic version from the 1920s with lines like “I am an Egyptian built by those who built the everlasting pyramids.”
Mr. Kamel noted in an interview that he could not run as a revolutionary. (The 42-year-old architect was pushing the youth envelope, but because Mr. Mubarak was 82, people half his age were deemed youthful.)
“They know that we were somehow pioneers in this, but now is not the time to say that,” he explained. “I have to speak about the new constitution, about education, health care and the environment.”
The conventional wisdom is that Mubarak and his cronies are bad and that whoever replaces them is good. It may not be that simple.
From Muslim Brotherhood Makes Fools of Naive West; Two Smart Egyptians Fear Future by Barry Rubin:
The opposition 21-party Egyptian Bloc has collapsed after only two months of existence. Only three determined secular-oriented parties remain in it: the genuinely liberal Free Egyptians Party (drawing mostly Christian support), the tiny Egyptian Social Democratic Party, and the radical leftist Tagammu Party.
The “Facebook kid” left-liberal Justice Party has formed its own bloc called The Revolution Continues while the Salafis (openly radical Islamists) are trying to combine in the Nour Party.
The three main “liberal” parties–Wafd, Free Egyptians, Justice–are all running against each other. They’ll split the vote and in district after district the Islamists will win.
The military council may not be populated with democrats and altruists, but they are driven by self interest. If the Muslim Brotherhood gains a significant foothold in government, the council will be the only counterweight against the Brotherhood's (eventual) designs for absolute power.
4) Saving face
Ma'an reports (via Daled Amos):
Facing failure in his bid to win full United Nations membership for Palestine, President Mahmoud Abbas may be forced to seek a lesser upgrade of his nation's status in the world body to protect his credibility from attack by Hamas.
Even going for "observer state" rank at the UN will likely expose the Palestinian Authority to more pressure from the United States and Israel, which have imposed financial sanctions in a bid to curb the Abbas administration's diplomatic campaign.
But Abbas has few alternatives if he wants to build on the domestic momentum his statehood drive has generated, compared to paralysis in the peace process upon which he had built his strategy for steering the Palestinian national struggle.
Abbas lost and now he seeks to safe face.
Two months ago the New York Times speculated:
Mr. Abbas’s plan, made public in a television address, follows months of failed American and European efforts to restart Palestinian negotiations with Israel. Some fear that Mr. Abbas’s move will raise expectations among his people, with nothing changing for them on the ground. Combined with alarmed reactions from Israeli settlers, violent showdowns could erupt.
Polls showed that Palestinians preferred negotiations to the UN sideshow. The initiative more likely came from the Palestinians' international cheerleaders, than from the Palestinian "street." My guess is that Abbas doesn't have the popular support to count on violent protests for a political boost. There are costs to overstaying your term in office for (nearly) three years.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Egyptian elections, Iran, Middle East Media Sampler, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Soccer Dad, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
UNESCO needs to get a sense of humor
The cartoon published above (I'll put the Hebrew original, which is larger, at the bottom of this post) was published in Haaretz last Friday after the UNESCO vote admitting the 'Palestinians' to membership.
UNESCO filed a complaint over it.
Israel's ambassador to UNESCO didn't know whether to laugh or cry when a senior official at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called him in for a tongue-lashing on Wednesday. The reason? A cartoon published in Haaretz.
When he met with Eric Falt, UNESCO's assistant director general for external relations and public information, Ambassador Nimrod Barkan was stunned to be handed a copy of this cartoon and an official letter of protest from UNESCO's director general, Irina Bokova. Falt told Barkan the cartoon constituted incitement.
"A cartoon like this endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats, and you have an obligation to protect them," Falt said, according to an Israeli source. "We understand that there is freedom of the press in Israel, but the government must prevent attacks on UNESCO."
And you thought UNESCO was supposed to protect a free press, didn't you? Well, wait until you see what comes next.
Barkan pointed out that the government has no control over editorial cartoons printed in the papers. "Ask yourselves what you did to make a moderate paper with a deeply internationalist bent publish such a cartoon," he suggested. "Perhaps the problem is with you."
After Barkan reported the conversation to the Foreign Ministry, it cabled back: "What exactly does UNESCO want of us - to send our fine boys to protect UNESCO's staff, or to shut down the paper? It seems your work environment is getting more and more reminiscent of 'Animal Farm.'"
Indeed.
Here's the original cartoon in Hebrew.
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, UNESCO, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
'Palestinians' threaten violence if they don't get their way
You just knew this was coming. With the 'Palestinians' lacking even the nine Security Council votes necessary to force the US to exercise its veto against their unilateral reichlet,
'Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen is threatening that if the 'Palestinians' don't get their way,
there will be violence.
A Palestinian Authority official warned Thursday that the region could be headed toward “violence and anarchy” because of the failure of the Palestinian statehood bid.
PA officials in Ramallah refused to say what they were planning to do now that the bid at the UN Security Council seems to have failed.
A UN Security Council subcommittee is expected to report Friday that the PA does not have the nine votes it needs to assure the council’s approval of its request for full UN membership.
According to the subcommittee, at least seven of the body’s 15 members won’t vote in support of the measure. Among them are the US, which will oppose it, and the United Kingdom and France, which will abstain.
The US had planned to veto the measure if it passed the Security Council.
But the PA pushed forward anyway, seeking to score a moral victory by securing the necessary backing and showing that the US was isolated in its support of Israel.
The PA’s inability to achieve this support weakens its president, Mahmoud Abbas.
Nimer Hammad, political adviser to Abbas, said that the Arab League foreign ministers would meet in the coming days to discuss the repercussions of the statehood bid’s failure at the Security Council.
He said the Arab League would discuss the options facing the PA now, but did not elaborate.
PA officials on Thursday expressed outrage with the US administration, Britain and France for opposing the statehood bid.
“The Americans, British and French leaders are hypocrites and liars,” the official told The Jerusalem Post. “They are not any better than [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu.”
What these spoiled brats need is a good, hard slap across the face. And if they start up again, hopefully the IDF will give it to them.
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations Security Council
UNESCO cancels the party
Awwwww.... UNESCO has had to cancel the party... because
they don't have a budget....
UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova told the UNESCO General Conference in Paris the move was because of a $65 million hole in the agency's 2011 budget created by the loss of US funds.
"We have to take radical steps and we have to take them now," Bokova told the conference in Paris on Wednesday, according to the text of her speech made public on Thursday.
UNESCO, which promotes global education and press freedom, among other tasks, would conduct a review of its activities between now and the end of December, during which new commitments would be put on hold.
A UNESCO spokesperson said priority programs would be maintained, and there were no plans for job losses at the organization for the time being.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was plunged into financial chaos in October when Washington, which provides 22 percent of its funds, froze its contributions following the Palestinian vote.
US legislation prohibits funding for any UN agency that grants full membership to any group that is not internationally recognized as a state.
Bokova said that by reviewing its contractual commitments, staffing levels, travel expenses and communications costs, UNESCO could probably generate savings of up to $35 million for this year's budget.
The agency would then use its $30 million working capital fund to cover the remainder of the $65 million shortfall, but that would leave its finances in a fragile state at the start of 2012.
For the coming year, the absence of US funding meant UNESCO was facing a $143 million shortfall, Bokova said, adding the agency would prioritize its activities and reduce operating expenses further if needed.
And President Obama can't change the rules because Congress doesn't want to change them. Well, I can think of some activities they could cut. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, UNESCO, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations budget
'Palestinians' admit they don't have the votes
Once again, a half hour out of the house became three hours....
The 'Palestinians' have admitted that
they do not have the votes in the Security Council to get their reichlet approved.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki told The Associated Press Tuesday, "It is clear now, with the U.S. counter effort and intervention, that we are not going to have these nine votes." They can still apply to the General Assembly.
Yes, but they cannot be granted membership to the UN without Security Council approval. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI)
Security Council deadlocked over 'Palestinians'
As some of you might have figured out, I totally collapsed last night. The 'overnight music video' was actually cannibalized from what was supposed to be a 1:59 am post that never went up (this post) because it was specifically appropriate to last night. It happens....
The US may never have to exercise that veto in the UN Security Council over the 'Palestinian' bid for unilateral 'statehood.' That's because the bid
does not have nine votes in the current council, and is less likely to have them in the next one.
A draft report by a key UN Security Council committee, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday, declared that members could not reach consensus on whether Palestine should be accepted as a UN member state.
"The committee was unable to make a unanimous recommendation to the Security Council," said the draft report of the council's committee on admitting new member states.
It was circulated to all 15 Security Council members on Tuesday.
The four-page draft appears to confirm that the Palestinian move to join the world body as a full member, which Western envoys said was doomed from the outset due to a US vow to veto it if it ever came to a vote in the council, is set to fail due to the council's unresolvable deadlock.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas applied for full UN membership for the state of Palestine on Sept. 23.
The Palestinians can still call for a vote in the Security Council, but diplomats say it is not clear whether they will do so given that Washington will likely not need to use its veto to block it.
The Palestinians would score a moral victory and force Washington to cast its veto if they are able to muster nine votes to support them in the council. A council resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes to pass.
But UN diplomats say the Palestinians have so far secured only eight backers.
Heh.
Labels: Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), United Nations Security Council
Ros-Lehtinen caves, 'Palestinian Authority' gets $200MM
The Obama administration convinced House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) that giving 'security assistance' to the 'Palestinian Authority' is a good idea, and $200 million of aid money to the 'Palestinians' has been unfrozen.
Another $200 million in economic aid
continues to be blocked.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that she would release her block on two separate sections of security aid – one for $50 million , and the second for $150 million.
An additional $200 million in economic assistance is still being withheld by both the State and Foreign Relations Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Both the security and economic funds were frozen by Congress in August, in response to the PA’s strategy of seeking unilateral recognition of statehood during the UN General Assembly in September.
A second key house leader, State and Foreign Relations Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), had used her committee to freeze only the economic aid, believing PA security forces aided in countering the influence of Hamas. Ros-Lehtinen’s move has removed the last roadblock to the security aid package.
Funding packages can be blocked by either chairwoman, and need the support of both representatives in order to be released.
In recent weeks, Ros-Lehtinen received extensive documentation from the administration explaining why releasing the security funds supported both America’s and Israel’s interests.
A committee spokesman said that Ros-Lehtinen received
over 1,000 pages of documentation on this aid money from the White House. I wonder whether in their three years in the White House, they have produced 1,000 pages of documentation on Iran.
I have three words to say about this.
Money is fungible.
Labels: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), US foreign aid
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday April 15: 
