'Palestinians' threaten violence if US moves embassy to Jerusalem
One of the first things Donald Trump did after he was elected President was to promise to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Now that they realize that Trump is serious (and has named my college classmate Dave Friedman his ambassador to prove it), the 'Palestinians' are responding in the only way they know how. They are threatening violence.
The Trump team has said that the US president-elect considers moving the embassy a "very big priority."
Throughout
his campaign for the presidency, Trump repeatedly said he would move
the US Embassy if elected – a political promise past US presidents have
frequently made, yet has never been held.
Longstanding US policy
is to treat the status of Jerusalem as an issue to be settled in
final-status negotiations with the Palestinians.
Longstanding US policy has also been to veto all anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council, and not to let them pass, let alone orchestrate their passage. This is the best response of all to Obama's and Kerry's betrayal of Israel.
And if the 'Palestinians' kill each other in response, מה טוב.
Greetings from Paris - Charles DeGaulle where once again Every Landing Always Late. They've admitted to two hours and fifteen minutes so far. And to think that I ran like crazy thinking I had only an hour and fifteen minutes to make a connection (American left more than two hours late from Charlotte last night, but made up much of that time on the way).
That's okay, because I will have some time to work after I finish this post (and maybe another one) and Paris may be one of the most appropriate places in the world to talk about Shimon Peres, who passed away this morning at the age of 93, because he was fluent in French and because in his later years he so emulated the French.
Israel owes a lot to Shimon Peres, especially our alleged nuclear capability, which was his doing in the early 1960's. I saw a Facebook post this morning that claimed that Peres 'saved' the country from hyperinflation in the 1980's, but the person who wrote it was a child at the time, and I was an adult. I don't believe that's accurate.
Palestinian Communications Minister Imad Al-Faluji, Al-Safir, 3 March 2001. (Translated by MEMRI):
Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out
because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong..
. . This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President
Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the
table upside down on President Clinton.
Yasser Arafat’s wife Suha (pictured above) said the following (from Palestinian Media Watch):
On the personal level, I miss him very, very
much. [Our daughter] Zahwa also misses him, you can’t imagine. She
didn’t know him. She knows that Arafat sent us away before the [Israeli]
invasion of Ramallah. He said: ‘You have to leave Palestine, because I
want to carry out an Intifada, and I’m not prepared to shield myself
behind my wife and little girl.’ Everyone said: ‘Suha abandoned him,’
but I didn’t abandon him. He ordered me to leave him because he had
already decided to carry out an Intifada after the Oslo Accords and
after the failure of Camp David [July 2000].
Imad Faluji, PA Minister of Communications:
Whoever thinks that the Intifada started because
of the hated Sharon’s visit to Al-Aqsa Mosque is mistaken. That was only
the straw breaking the Palestinian people’s patience. This Intifada was
already planned since [Arafat] the President returned from the recent
talks at Camp David [July 2000].” [Private filming of speech by Faluji, Dec. 5, 2000]
The Israel Project
notes that American diplomat Dennis Ross recounts in his book The
Missing Peace how the Israelis called Washington with proof that the
Palestinians were “planning massive, violent demonstrations
throughout the West Bank and the next morning, ostensibly a response to
the Sharon visit.” Washington pressured Arafat to dampen the violence, but the Palestinian leader – again per Ross – “did not lift a finger to stop the demonstrations, which produced the second Intifada.”
Who was Shimon Peres. Some interesting quotes are here. He did some good for the State of Israel, but he took many actions, especially in his later years, that were based on delusions of grandeur that harmed many people.
Republican US Presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump
is strongly considering a visit to the Temple Mount when he comes to
Israel for the first time at the end of the month.
A source closely connected to organizing the trip to Israel confirmed to The Jerusalem Post
on Wednesday that Trump's staff is looking into the logistics of
visiting the holy site and point of conflict between Israel and the Arab
world.
The planned visit follows Trump's call for "a total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our
country's representatives can figure out what is going on" in light of
"great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim
population."
Palestinians have often used Israeli politicians'
visits to the Mount as an excuse for violence, falsely claiming Israel
is changing the status quo.
The government maintains the status
quo, in that non-Muslims may visit, but not pray on the Temple Mount,
which is administered by the Jordanian Islamic Trust (Wakf). Jewish
visitors are often harassed at the holy site, and earlier this year, a
delegation of US Congressmen visiting the plaza also complained of harassment by Wakf guards.
Palestinian claims about the Temple Mount reached a fever pitch in
recent months, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
claiming Jews' feet defile the site, and contributed to sparking the
current wave of terrorism, during which police found explosives hidden
in the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Mount.
MK Taleb Abu Arrar (Joint
List) said of Trump's plan to visit the Temple Mount: "If Trump the
racist plans to visit Al-Aksa, the holiest place in the world for
Muslims, to harm the sensitivities of people against whom he incites, he
and Netanyahu will be responsible.
"Such a visit will set the whole region on fire, I am warning," Abu Arrar added.
Yes, but neither of those Congressmen (Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David McKinley (R-WV)) were a particular target for the Arab world, and they visited 'undercover.' Trump is very recognizable and is now a lightning rod for the Arab/Muslim world. While I believe it's wrong to allow only Muslims access to the Mount, I don't believe that Israel needs to give the 'Palestinians' an excuse for suicide bombings and murder by allowing Trump onto the Mount.
While I don't agree with everything in this analysis, Udi Segal raises much cause for concern regarding the current situation involving the 'Palestinians.'
Another reason that Islamism has for the most part been halted in Judea
and Samaria can be traced to the fact that the Fatah movement is in a
fight for its very survival. It knows that failure would spell the end
for it, and Hamas would show it no mercy. When it comes to religious
fanaticism, the formula of “bad is good” applies.
This formula
is what guides the spread of radical Islamism. It is the source of
horror and shock that is generated by the specter of Shi’ite Islam as
represented by Iran and the Revolutionary Guards. The Islamic Republic
has spent a great deal of money financing terrorism as well as a costly
nuclear program.
The extremist Sunni organization, Islamic
State, took things a step further. Its actions dwarf the brutality of
the Al Quds Force. Even al-Qaida looks like a cute, cuddly teddy bear in
comparison. Have the people who have come under ISIS rule seen their
lives improve? The answer is no. Bad is good.
If we were to take a
peek at what is going on with our neighbors to the northeast, we are
left to wonder - is there anyone enjoying the situation in Syria now?
No. There is a brutal civil war there in which a quarter million people
have been butchered. As a country, Syria is in ruins. Its infrastructure
is crumbling. Its economy is in shambles. Its citizens are being
slaughtered, and those who survived are witnesses to acts that will stay
with them as personal and national traumas for generations to come.
Millions
have become refugees who have streamed into Jordan and Turkey. Now,
wretched and without any possessions, they knock on the doors of Europe.
Is this Arab pride? Is this Syrian courage? Hezbollah has lost 1,400
guerillas, more than one-tenth of its fighting force. ISIS is conquering
territory and losing some as well, bombing and being bombarded. Things
are bad, for everyone involved.
And this is precisely the goal.
For extremist Islam, bad is good. Only the destruction of the
foundations of contemporary Western culture and a return to the stone
age - in its simplest and historic meaning - will usher in the rule of
sharia, the austere form of Islam that was in effect 500 years ago. That
will pave the way for the establishment of the Islamic caliphate.
It
is quite an ambitious goal - taking apart the artificial entities
imposed by the West, including statehood, institutions of law and order,
economic structure, and norms of morality and regulations. The goal is
to destroy everything and wash it over with Islamism, some of whose
adherents believe is engaged in a war of armageddon.
This toxic
mix could easily merge with the rising tide of terror and rebellion
percolating in the Palestinian territories. With despair the dominant
theme, the Palestinians could decide to take everything apart. Even
Abbas, the serial threatener, is planning a provocation of his own by
announcing at the United Nations that he is handing back the keys to the
Palestinian Authority.
Read the whole thing. My own view is that this is the time to rule with an iron fist. That's why (as those who follow me on Twitter already know) I am all in favor of the new rules of engagement that allow the police and the IDF to shoot at stone throwers. The stone throwers are attempted murderers, and showing them mercy is a mistake. They are a deadly force and the law of proportionality requires responding to them with deadly force. Fortunately, the IDF has been able to shut much of the weapons flow to Judea and Samaria that led to the 'second intifada' 15 years ago, and there is no reason to let up now.
It's come to this: Obama siding with 'Palestinians' against US citizen terror victims
In a lawsuit brought by American terror victims, guess which side the Obama administration is taking. You guessed it... the 'Palestinian' side.
The lawsuit was filed over a series of bombings and shootings in or
around Jerusalem that killed dozens of US citizens during the second Palestinian intifada, a decade ago.
The case was delayed for years while Palestinian lawyers tried to
challenge the American court’s jurisdiction, but last February, the
families won a $218.5 million judgment after a seven-week trial in
Manhattan Federal Court. The jury found that the PLO and Palestinian
Authority were responsible for a string of attacks from 2001 to 2004
that killed 33 and injured hundreds.
Unfortunately for the cash-strapped Palestinians, a 1992 law requires
damages in cases such as these, to be tripled, with interest on the
award, pushing it to as much as $1.1 billion.
The judgment amounts to nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual operating budget.
Palestinian leadership say they are not responsible “for the actions
of individuals” who killed or wounded Americans, and are appealing the
decision.
The Obama administration has reportedly signaled that it will
intervene on behalf of the Palestinians in this case over US citizens.
Late last month, the Department of Justice, which had
previously not been involved in the 11-year-old case, informed the court
it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug.
10, but officials would not elaborate. A source said the Department of
Justice was working with the State Department on the matter.
“As the filing states, the United States is considering whether to
submit a Statement of Interest in the [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation
Organization] matter,” a DOJ spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. “Any filing
would be made on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of any other
party.”
The Palestinian leadership would not have to pay the award unless it
is upheld on appeal, but U.S. District Judge George Daniels said he may
require the Palestinians to post bond while the case works its way
through the process to show “some meaningful demonstration that the
defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”
“An administration which claims to be fighting terror is planning to weigh in favor of the terrorists,” Yalowitz told FoxNews.com.
“If our government actually came in favor of convicted terrorists, it
would be a really sorry statement about the way our government treats
terror.”
In December 2009 Therumpus.net published an interview with Michal
Zak, “a forty-nine year old Jewish resident of Neve Shalom, a village
with a population mandated at exactly 50% Palestinian Arab/Israeli Jew.”
A facilitator at the “school for peace,” she was asked by Jesse Nathan
whether “Palestinian resistance” also includes suicide bombers. Zak
responded that they are “in a category of violence against civilians -
as opposed to violence against soldiers which is the most legitimate,
and violence against settlers, which is second on my list.” Zak claimed
that bombing civilians “just makes me see how desperate they are.”
The interview is emblematic of what "coexistence" often really means in the Israeli-Palestinian context:
the “Israeli” side adopts the Palestinian narrative and supports,
almost wholeheartedly, Palestinians. The Palestinian side embraces the
“Israeli” view - insofar as the Israeli view is the Palestinian view in
this coexistence situation. They "coexist" as Pro-Palestinian
Palestinians and Pro-Palestinian Israelis. Palestinians who are killed
in “martyrdom operations” are martyrs, Israeli soldiers are killers,
Palestinians always have a “right to resist,” while Israeli rights to do
much of anything are diminished. Palestinian nationalism is good
nationalism, Israeli nationalism is chauvinist and fascistic and
unacceptable.
...
For coexistence to ever be meaningful, it would have to build several
real bridges. First, it would have to not only be a case of Israelis
supporting Palestinian nationalism and Palestinians supporting
Palestinian nationalism. It would have to really challenge Palestinians
and hold them to the same accountability as Israeli society in terms of
encouraging progressive and liberal values – to say nothing of
recognizing the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism in the Land of Israel,
not just "sorrow for the Holocaust". Second, it would have to appeal to
not only secular Jews on the left and Palestinians who are
nationalists. Third, it would need to have indigenous Palestinian
support and funding from Palestinian backers and Palestinians playing an
integral part in running the organizations.
If Palestinians aren’t stepping forward to start “Dabka for Peace” or
“embroidery for peace,” the situation isn’t going to improve.
Coexistence work should not be a cover for radical anti-Israel views,
such as one “coexistence” activist who compared the hardship of waiting
at a checkpoint in a Palestinian bus to the mass murder of Israeli
civilians on a bus, in an essay now removed from online called “a tale
of two buses.” Blowing people up, shooting them, sniper fire,
“resistance” and tunnels; none of that has anything to do with
coexistence.
In the long run, as many of the Palestinians who said they don’t go
to coexistence groups precisely because they enjoy the authentic
friendships they have with Jews “as people first, not ethnicities,” the
real coexistence comes when these kinds of artificial frameworks
disappear. “I can coexist at a bar over some drinks,” one woman told
me. Indeed.
This has been precisely the problem with the 'peace process' from Day One. In the aftermath of Oslo, Israeli kids were given an 'education for peace,' which meant learning to see the narrative from the viewpoint of the 'other.' The 'Palestinians' were only taught the 'Palestinian' narrative. Israel has for 30 years or more had groups like 'Peace Now' and 'Tush Shalom.' No such group has ever existed among the 'Palestinians' (and the 'Palestinian Authority' or Hamas would likely kill - literally - any such group if it ever came into existence).
What's worse is that seeing a narrative from the viewpoint of the 'other' weakens one's belief in one's own narrative. There's a huge difference between seeing one's own narrative as the only legitimate one, and between seeing two conflicting yet somehow equally valid narratives. Israelis have been taught to critically question the narrative they have been taught while 'Palestinians' have had their own narrative more and more deeply ensconced in their minds.The result is that Israelis' belief in their own narrative - particularly among the young - has been weakened (although there has been some walking back of that weakening since the second intifadeh) - while 'Palestinians' belief in their narrative has been strengthened.
Must see video interview of Israeli reporter who regularly travels the Arab world
Just before leaving for Syria, Jerusalem reporter Jonathan Spyer tells Voice of Israel's Eve Harow why a local recently told him, 'Suria Rach,' or 'Syria
is gone.' A must listen for anyone interested in the current chaotic
state of the Levant.
This video is the first of two parts. The second one will follow below.
But as I've written before, I think Kerry is on a fool's errand, and I
think the collapse of these talks, which is almost inevitable, could
have dangerous consequences. Remember what followed the collapse of the
Camp David peace process in 2000: years of violence, including horrific
bus-bombing campaigns.
This is true. Possibly, but not likely. A lot has changed since 2000 for
Israel. We are not talking about Gaza, because I can't imagine Hamas
getting involved in a war to bail out Fatah. But also, Israel degraded
many of the terrorist groups operating in Judea and Samaria and built a
security fence. It's important to remember, that the so called "Aqsa
intifada" wasn't a spontaneous outbreak of violence but a war started by Arafat. Abbas may not be committed to peace, but I don't think he's capable or willing to go to such lengths.
The first is that Hamas exists and is in control of the Gaza Strip,
whether we like it or not. Abbas's Palestinian Authority, which will be
bargaining with Israel, will represent at best half of Palestine. How do
you negotiate a state into existence that is divided between two
warring factions? It isn't even clear if the Palestinian Authority is
fully in control of those parts of the West Bank that Israel deigns to
let it control. (I will save for another time the deeper discussion of
whether the maximum an Israeli government could offer the Palestinians
represents the minimum the Palestinians could plausibly accept.)
Goldberg's correct here on both counts, but then he writes:
You also have to blind yourself to the reality that the Jewish
settlement movement on the West Bank is now the most powerful political
force in Israel. This is a movement whose leaders and Knesset
representatives and cabinet ministers will subvert any peace process
that would lead to the dismantling of even a single settlement,
including any of the dozens of well-populated ones far beyond Israel's
West Bank security barrier.
Is he talking about the "settlement movement" that stopped the
withdrawals from Judea and Samaria in 1995 and from Hebron in 1997? Or
is he referring to those who stopped the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005?
Goldberg ascribes political powers to the settlers that they just don't
have. They make a convenient bogeyman, but when have settlers stopped
Israeli withdrawals in the past?
So what does Goldberg suggest?
With the Israelis, Kerry (and his boss) should talk about the
demographic, security and moral challenges of governing a population
that doesn't want to be governed by Israel. He would be pushing on a bit
of an open door -- the increasingly centrist Netanyahu (who is becoming
more and more alienated from his robustly right-wing Likud party),
seems to understand now that continued occupation (an occupation that
exists at this point mainly to support the settlers) is undermining
Israel's international legitimacy and its future as a Jewish-majority
democracy.
Kerry is understood in Israel as a true friend; his lobbying could be
effective. If the Israelis would take small, unilateral steps on
settlements, they could change the Palestinian calculus and improve
Israel's reputation (which has become a genuine national-security
concern).
This is condescending beyond belief. He just noticed that Netanyahu's a centrist? After Netanyahu agreed to the Hebron Accords, Charles Krauthammer observed:
The Hebron agreement was historic for Israel. It was the first time that
Likud agreed to give up a piece of Eretz Yisrael -- the land of Israel.
Netanyahu not only signed on to Hebron. He got a majority of his
rightist coalition to sign on as well. And he brought the majority of
Parliament along with him.
Remember: Netanyahu may have campaigned personally as one who would
retain Oslo while making it more reciprocal, but this was not the
unanimous view of Likud. There are many in Likud and, more generally, on
the Israeli right who view Oslo as so fundamentally flawed that it
needs to be rejected at whatever cost.
Netanyahu recognized that the cost of this approach would have been far
more than Israel could bear. He then proceeded to bring his half of
Israel into the peace process. Signing Hebron meant retroactively
signing Oslo, and Netanyahu got his "national camp" cabinet to sign,
11-7. In the Knesset, he got his own Likud party to vote more than 2-1
in favor. When Menachem Begin brought Camp David back to the Israeli
parliament in September 1978, almost half the Knesset members of Begin's
own Herut party failed to support him.
With the Hebron Accords and the withdrawal from most of Hebron,
Netanyahu did more to advance the peace process than anyone from Peace
Now or J-Street. He did more for the peace process than Thomas Friedman
or Jeffrey Goldberg did. And he certainly did more than either Yasser
Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas ever did.
The problem with the peace process now, isn't Israeli ideology, but
Israeli practicality. Israelis know that when they withdrew from
territory, they strengthened their enemies and paid significant prices
for those withdrawals. But there is no occupation now. Israel doesn't
rule over the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The only question - and
this has been the case since the end of 1995 - is what the formal
borders will be. Goldberg conflates Palestinian demands with reality and
assumes that only if all Palestinian demands are met does Israel
deserve peace and to be declared occupation free.
Why should Israel's reputation be a concern? Israel played by the rules
made the concessions and was rewarded with terror. When Israel fought
back, Israel was condemned; not Fatah who violated its word that it
given up terror, not Hezbollah even though Israel was fully withdrawn
from Lebanon and not Hamas even though Israel no longer occupied Gaza.
Really, is Kerry really going to convince Israel: just make a few more
concessions and the world will stop believing Arab propaganda? The world
didn't credit the past 20 years of Israeli concessions, will it start
doing so now?
On the other side, Kerry might want to try a bit more aggressively to
help the Palestinian Authority become a viable governing body with a
functioning economy and a bureaucracy that is reasonably free of
corruption. Strengthening the Palestinian Authority (and working to
weaken Hamas) while cajoling the Israelis to wean themselves from their
addiction to settlements are two steps Kerry could take to advance
negotiations.
Earlier this year, Abbas had two prime ministers quit on him. What makes
Goldberg think that the PA under Abbas want to "become a viable
governing body?" Note that unlike Israel, the Palestinian Authority has
no "moral challenge" in front of it. Does the Palestinian Authority
lionize terrorists? Of course it does. Is Abbas increasingly authoritarian? Of course he is.
Goldberg by insisting on moral imperatives for Israel but not the
Palestinians, shows the fundamental imbalance that he applies to the
peace process. Israel must make concessions for its own moral health,
but not the Palestinians. This gives the PA veto power over Israel's
legitimacy. By this calculus, as long as the PA isn't happy, Israel
isn't legitimate. Thus Israel has every reason to comply and the PA has
none.
Finally we get to:
It's true that Kerry has gotten the Israelis to agree to release some
Palestinian prisoners. And he may convince the Palestinians to cease,
for a while, their campaign to delegitimize Israel in the international
arena. But these developments, by themselves, won't advance the larger
cause.
That campaign to "delegitimize Israel in the international arena" is a
violation of the premise of peace process, which called for the PLO to
eschew terror and engage in bilateral negotiations. It was based on
these premises that the PLO was declared to no longer be a terrorist
organization. It has not done either. (If the PLO or Fatah is no longer a
terrorist organization it has less to with its having reformed itself
than with Israel having defeated, at great cost, the terrorist elements
within Fatah.)
But let's say that Israel's release of murderers does get Abbas to deign
to talk with Israel again. And let's say that Israel and the PA come to
an agreement. Would everything be great? The Middle East would have
peace. Israel would be legitimate. Kerry would have his first Nobel
Prize and Obama his second. What a wonderful world!
Wait.
What did the PA's minister of religion say?
On the eve of the renewed peace talks with Israel, PA Minister of
Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash said in his Friday sermon that when
PA leaders signed agreements with Israel, they knew how to walk "the
right path, which leads to achievement, exactly like the Prophet
[Muhammad] did in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah." Al-Habbash's sermon was
delivered in the presence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and was broadcast
on official Palestinian Authority TV.
The Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce that Muhammad, Islam's
Prophet, made with the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years into
the truce, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca. The PA Minister of
Religious Affairs stressed in his Friday sermon that Muhammad’s agreeing
to the Hudaybiyyah treaty was not "disobedience" to Allah, but was
"politics" and "crisis management." The minister emphasized that in
spite of the peace treaty, two years later Muhammad "conquered Mecca."
He ended his comparison by expressing the view that the Hudaybiyyah
agreement is not just past history, but that "this is the example and
this is the model."
Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, there have been senior PA
officials who have presented the peace process with Israel as a
deceptive tactic that both facilitated the PA's five-year terror
campaign against Israel (the Intifada), and which will weaken Israel
through territorial compromise that will eventually lead to Israel's
destruction.
In the latest taped excerpt, which rekindled the dispute today, the
P.L.O. leader compares his agreement with the Israelis to a 10-year
peace arrangement in the seventh century between the Prophet Mohammed
and the Quraish tribe. That accord was broken two years later. Muslims
say the violation was commited by the Quraish, not Mohammed, who went on
to capture Mecca.
Many Israelis interpreted the ancient reference by Mr. Arafat as a
signal that he had no intention of accepting his agreement with Israel
as binding.
"Many Israelis?" How about "any sentient being?" Well the interpretation
of "many Israelis" was correct as Arafat violated the Oslo Accords on a
regular basis.
The problem isn't Netanyahu. It's not the settlers. It's the Palestinian
mindset that they won't accept Israel until they achieve all of their
demands. And if leaders of the Palestinian Authority are to be believed,
maybe not even then.
If Jeffrey Goldberg wants to give useful advice, maybe he should
recommend giving one of those "morality" lectures to the Palestinian
Authority. About the imperative of negotiating in good faith and
sticking to its commitments.
The danger in talks, of course, is that Palestinian expectations rise
and then are dashed, leading to violence (we’ve seen this pattern
before). A former U.S. official tells me: “The risk now is of a quick
breakdown that could even lead to violence in the West Bank.” He
concedes that preliminary talks about talks could drag on before they
peter out. He nevertheless cautions that “many people fear that the
breakdown will poison Israeli-Palestinian relations further, which will
help no one. And they will further weaken the West Bank leadership . . .
against Hamas, reminding the populace that these guys achieve nothing
(and have their hands in the till).”
Moreover, this is a foolish misuse of American attention and stature,
confirming both to our Sunni allies and the Iranian alliance that we
are fundamentally unserious about the real threats to region.
If Kerry wanted to be productive he might work on pushing the
Palestinians along the lines former Palestinian Authority prime minister
Salam Fayyad urged — improved security, civil institution building and
economic security. The U.S. official observes, “The slow and steady work
of building an economy and government institutions for the Palestinians
is once again being pushed aside for the goal of a handshake on the
White House lawn.”
In sum, Kerry’s efforts suggest the administration has learned
nothing from its first term. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not, as
Kerry insists, the center of the Middle East’s troubles. Pretending it
is invites failure, American humiliation and aggression by the powers
that should command our attention. In the meantime, the prospects for an
improved life for the Palestinians and a less confrontational
relationship with the Jewish state remain remote.
Not to mention that whenever there have been talks in the past, there has simultaneously been terrorism.
Noah Beck reminds us that what happened in Boston two weeks ago was a weekly occurrence in Israel a decade ago.
But imagine if this happened again next week, at a pizzeria, killing 15
diners. And again, a week later, on a bus, killing 19 passengers. Then,
at a discotheque, killing 21 teens. Then, at a church, killing 11
worshipers. And so on, with a new bombing terrorizing us almost every
week.
Israelis don't have to imagine. They just have to remember. Between
1995 and 2005, each year saw an average of 14 suicide bombings,
murdering 66 victims. 2002 was the worst year, with 47 bombings that
slaughtered 238 people. That’s almost one Boston bombing every week.
Adjusted for population differences, Israel’s victims in 2002 amounted
to the equivalent of three 9/11s in one year. And these bombing
statistics don’t include all of the shootings, stabbings, and other
violent attacks by Palestinian extremists during those years.
Most Americans (and Europeans), who enjoy lives of far greater
security, can barely recall such attacks because they usually received
only scant and perfunctory media coverage, if they were mentioned at
all. A few particularly gruesome attacks (like the Netanya Passover
bombing that killed 30 and injured 140) were prominently reported but
most attacks were barely and inconspicuously noted, and many smaller but
horrific attacks went entirely unreported.
Of course, whenever Israel responded militarily to these attacks, that
would be headline news.
As WSJ columnist Brett Stephens noted in 2009,
"every Palestinian death receives somewhere in the order of 28 times the
attention of every Chechen death." When Israel erected its West Bank
security barrier, a non-violent but extremely effective way to prevent
Palestinian terrorism, that too was headline news. The fence was even
brought before the International Court of Justice in 2004 – unlike the
terrorism that compelled it. Israel surely had other uses for the $2
billion spent to build the barrier, but the number of attacks and
fatalities dropped so dramatically after its construction that few
Israelis doubted its necessity.
What's worse is that every Israeli knows (or ought to know) that if the IDF were to leave Judea and Samaria tomorrow, we'd be right back to where we were in 2002 - and worse, God forbid.
Suha admits it: Yasser Arafat planned the intifada after Camp David collapsed
Yasser Arafat's widow Suha has told Dubai television that her husband planned the intifada right after the failure of Camp David in August 2000. The intifada had absolutely nothing to do with Ariel Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, September 11.
1) When Innocents are the Enemy
Michael Kelly's column of September 12, 2001 was "When Innocents are the Enemy." (published here at Jewish World Review)
Here is where we end up, with murder on a mass scale of people whose sole sin was, apparently, that they were Americans. Immediate suspicion focused on anti-Israeli (and therefore anti-American) terrorist groups. Yasser Arafat, who has championed the legitimacy of anti-Israeli terror his entire career, nonetheless was quick to express himself "completely shocked," at an attack he said he condemned, and he offered the American people condolences on behalf "of the Palestinian people." I don't doubt Arafat's shock. And I don't think he had anything directly to do with the monstrous evil of Sept. 11. Indeed, it is possible that what happened yesterday had nothing to do with the Middle East. But this evil rose, with hideous logic, directly from the philosophy that the leaders and supporters of the Palestinian cause have long embraced and still embrace -- a philosophy that accepts the murder of innocents as a legitimate expression of a legitimate struggle. If it is morally acceptable to murder, in the name of a necessary blow for freedom, a woman on a Tel Aviv street, or to blow up a disco full of teenagers, or to bomb a family restaurant -- then it must be morally acceptable to drive two jetliners into a place where 50,000 people work. In moral logic, what is the difference? If the murder of innocent people is for whatever reason excusable, it is excusable; if it is legitimate, it is legitimate. If acceptable on a small scale, so too on a grand.
How billions in aid have been spent is something else. Spending on the bloated public sector and the binge of construction and infrastructure projects throughout the West Bank account are obvious for only some of the money. Still, Western donors, interested as ever in buying quiet, have not been too curious about Palestinian corruption that has diverted unknown amounts. Israel, too, has been more interested in the status quo. Without this aid the Palestinian economy could not have made the impressive gains it has registered under prime minister Salam Fayyad. The quiet that has been purchased benefits all parties including Israel, but is probably unsustainable in an era of European economic collapse and American austerity. Fayyad warns all visitors that peace and quiet requires continued funding. Enough unpaid salaries could itself spark an intifada, against the Palestinian Authority.
This article also claims that Abbas initially stirred up protests against Salam Fayyad. However according to the Washington Post, over the weekend Mahmoud Abbas responded to the protests.
Seeking to defuse public anger, Abbas said that he would not dispatch the police to break up demonstrations and that people had the right to protest peacefully against their leadership. “We are not sacred,” he said. “But Salam Fayyad is an integral part of the Palestinian Authority. . . . I’m the first person who should be held responsible.” ... He also pointed an accusing finger at Israel, saying its policies in the West Bank, including restrictions on movement and access to resources, had hampered the Palestinian Authority’s ability to manage the economy.
Imbued with the spirit of the Arab Spring uprisings that shook the region and toppled long-entrenched leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, protesters in this volatile city adapted the popular slogans of those revolts, calling for the downfall of Mr. Abbas and denouncing corruption in the Palestinian Authority. In Ramallah, the site of the administrative headquarters of the authority in the West Bank, demonstrators burned tires on the main roads leading into the city and gathered in the central square. There were more protests in Bethlehem, and television images from Nablus, in the northern West Bank, showed damage to Palestinian government buildings. But unlike the protests in other countries in the region, the evolving Palestinian demonstrations have so far been hampered by confusion over whom, or what, to protest against — the Palestinian leadership that wields limited authority in the West Bank, or the Israelis who occupy the territory.
Kershner made a point of blaming Israel for the lack of Palestinian economic progress. But that's too easy. The dynamic described by Romirowsky and Joffe is one of a government that derives its power from the international funds it receives and then disburses not from electoral legitimacy. A society that depends on the largesse of others rather than its own initiative is not sustainable. Salam Fayyad couldn't create a functioning economy on his own.
It's no secret that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist faction that controls Gaza, has long considered exchanging its underground smuggling tunnels to Egypt for a policy of above-board trade. What has only recently begun to register is that Hamas may be contemplating a bolder political gambit still: Cutting its financial ties to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank, in preparations for declaring full independence on behalf of Gaza. Al-Hayat first reported the story on July 22. The London-based Arabic daily noted that Hamas was poised to sever its limited economic ties with Israel, open a free trade zone with Egypt at the Rafah border crossing, and declare itself liberated. Before the story could gain traction, however, senior Hamas leaders Mahmoud al-Zahhar and Salah al-Bardawil quickly disavowed the reports. But senior Gazans quietly acknowledged to me in recent meetings that Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood splinter group, and President Mohamed Morsi's new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, are actively discussing this controversial idea. Hamas has approached the question patiently since conquering the Gaza Strip from the Palestinian Authority in 2007. Now, after a half decade of economic hardship resulting from the Gaza embargo, the Hamas government appears to believe that 1.7 million Gazans would welcome the free flow of goods above nearly all else.
From an Israeli standpoint this is frightening prospect. Still as Schanzer writes later not all Egyptians are convinced this a good idea. This would certainly be another blow to Abbas's hold on power.
A government spokesman said Sunday that Egypt's president has ordered the defense minister and chief of staff to retire and has canceled the military-declared constitutional amendments that gave top generals wide powers. President Mohammed Morsi also issued a new constitutional declaration that grants him many presidential powers that were restricted by the army in June, al-Ahram news site reported.
In an unprecedented move, a civilian court ordered the arrest of Turkey’s former head of the army, the highest-ranking officer so far to be charged with leadership of an illegal network accused of seeking to overthrow the government, news outlets reported late Thursday.In an unprecedented move, a civilian court ordered the arrest of Turkey’s former head of the army, the highest-ranking officer so far to be charged with leadership of an illegal network accused of seeking to overthrow the government, news outlets reported late Thursday. Gen. Ilker Basbug, who was the chief of the army’s general staff from 2008 until his retirement in 2010, denied the charges, calling it a tragicomedy that the former commander of one of the world’s strongest armies would be accused of belonging to a terrorist organization, according to NTV, a private television station.
Morsi, like Erdogan, has moved against two institutions that could have been counterweights to his gaining unchallenged power. Friedman, of course, saw the Turkish path as a good thing.
As analysts struggled to tell whether the shake-up represented a break between Mr. Morsi and the military, or a carefully brokered deal, many looked for clues in the replacements named for the retired generals. For two major posts, Mr. Morsi chose officers from the supreme military council, suggesting that he had possibly struck a deal with younger officers. Some saw the way that the retirements were announced — not as voluntary actions by the officers, but as referrals by the president — as evidence that they were a surprise. But that was far from clear. For his new defense minister, Mr. Morsi chose the head of military intelligence, Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, who was seen as close to Field Marshal Tantawi. General Sisi’s name surfaced last year when he acknowledged to Amnesty International that the military had subjected female protesters to “virginity tests.” The general defended the policy by saying it was imposed to “protect” soldiers from allegations of rape but said the tests would be stopped.
Tantawi’s removal sidelines a longtime U.S. interlocutor in a country that has received tens of billions of dollars in military aid in exchange for maintaining peace with Israel. The move appeared to catch U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and the Pentagon off guard. Panetta visited Egypt about two weeks ago and seemed to come away with the view that Tantawi and Morsi were cooperating. “It is my view, based on what I have seen, that President Morsi and Field Marshal Tantawi have a very good relationship and are working together towards the same ends,” Panetta said.
What’s indisputable is that the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Morsi is a longtime member, has now tightened its grip on Egypt, controlling the military as well as the presidency and the parliament. That’s either an example of democracy in action and civilian control of the military, or a Muslim Brotherhood putsch, depending on your viewpoint. It probably has elements of both. The U.S. view is that the replacement of aging top military leaders, in itself, isn’t worrying. But they would be concerned if Morsi moved to make changes in Egypt’s judiciary, which has been an important independent center of power since the Tahrir Square revolution that deposed Mubarak in February 2011. Worries about the judiciary were prompted by another Morsi move Sunday — to appoint senior judge Mahmoud Mekki as vice president. The fear is that Mekki, as a former jurist, might reject rulings by the courts. ... U.S. officials don’t appear to have evidence that the purge was planned or debated by top leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, Morsi used the terrorist attack in Sinai last week that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers as an excuse for installing new leadership in the military. The first key change was Thursday’s firing of the intelligence chief, Gen. Murad Muwafi, who had won praise from U.S., Israeli and European officials — in part because he had been pressing for months for a crackdown against terrorist groups taking root in the Sinai.
Barry Rubin writes that official American timidity likely emboldened Morsi:
So can you write “Arab Spring,” “free elections,” “democracy in Egypt,” and such things 100 times? This just might be somewhat in contradiction to the fact that: Muslim Brotherhood President al-Mursi has just removed the two commanding generals of the Egyptian military. Does he have a right to do this? Who knows. There’s no constitution. That means all we were told about not having to worry because the generals would restrain the Brotherhood was false. Moreover, the idea that the army, and hence the government, may fear to act lest they lose U.S. aid will also be false. There is no parliament at present He is now the democratically elected dictator of Egypt. True, he picked another career officer but he has now put forward the principle: he decides who runs the army. The generals can still advise Mursi. He can choose to listen to them or not. But there is no more dual power in Egypt but only one leader. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces which has run Egypt since February 2011 is gone. Only Mursi remains and Egypt is now at his mercy. Behind the scenes note: Would Mursi dared have done this if he thought Obama would come down on him like a ton of bricks? Would the army give up if they thought America was behind it? No on both counts.
The media's portrayal of the Muslim Brotherhood since January, 2011 has changed. Originally the Brotherhood was peripheral to the pro-democracy demonstrators. (Don't worry it's the Facebook generation.) As the jockeying for the post-Mubarak future continued, the approach was more along the lines of, the Muslim Brotherhood is looking to participate in government not dominate it. When it became clear that the Brotherhood was looking for political power we were assured that they would be constrained by electoral concerns and that they weren't seeking to impose their religious vision on Egypt.
Now, apparently, all constraints are gone, what does that portend for the future?
It was a tour that could happen only here: a stroll to the sites of Palestinian suicide bombings up and down Jaffa Road, Jerusalem’s main thoroughfare, which has the dubious distinction of being the street hit by the most such attacks anywhere in the world.
Though it shouldn't be surprising, I was struck by the "dubious distinction." While so much of the discussion in policy circles and the media of the Middle East peace process centers around "settlements," terrorism seems to be a secondary concern. Does it occur to anyone that the fact that Israel continued seeking peace despite these once common attacks on one of the busiest streets in its capital city is defies expectations?
While most of the article is non-committal at the end Atia's agenda is revealed.
The aim of the tour, which was recorded for a film Atia is making, seemed to be a form of catharsis. Atia ended the walk at Ben-Yehuda Street, a bustling pedestrian mall targeted in the years of the bombings. There he pointed out a tree that had been planted by New York’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, who visited Jerusalem after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to show support. The tree, Atia said, was a sign of growth and hope for a better future, the only commemorative marker that symbolized “the option of healing and forgiveness, a change of consciousness from mourning and revenge.” “We are afraid of what has already happened,” he added. “My fantasy is to live without waiting for the next disaster.”
The utter lack of context here is disturbing. The bombings started after Israel recognized the PLO and allowed the Palestinian Authority to operate in the major Palestinian population centers. The Oslo era was supposed to usher in a new time of peace. To say now that only a tree shows hope for the future is a cruel dismissal of the betrayal of the peace process. The terror destroyed the "option of healing and forgiveness" that the peace process was supposed to bring about. To fault Israel at this point is beyond callous.
Sunday was a totally crazy day - I drove son # 4 child #7 on a trip to Ein Gedi (alongside the Dead Sea), came home exhausted (four hours in the sun in 40 degree Celsius heat will do that even to people who got more than 2.5 hours of sleep the night before), and then went to daughter # 3 child # 5's high school graduation. Today is relatively tame - an afternoon meeting in the Tel Aviv area, except that Mrs. Carl has the car so I have to take public transport. Oh - and I'm hoping to meet the new grandson on the way home, God willing, if the timing works out.
So I'm a bit behind....
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, June 24.
One man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate, as Mr. Gingrich’s collapse showed, but he can buy enough ads to help push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year’s. Given that Mr. Romney was not his first choice, why is Mr. Adelson writing these huge checks? The first answer is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by President Obama and most Israelis. He considers a Palestinian state “a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians. Mr. Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer.
I don't know that Adelson is "disgusted" with a "two-state solution," though he certainly seems skeptical that it will achieve peace. And while he disagreed with AIPAC regarding aid to the Palestinians in 2007, it isn't at all clear that he broke with the group. Nor is it fair to describe Adelson as "further to the right" than AIPAC, suggesting that AIPAC is itself "to the right." AIPAC represents the center of pro-Israel advocacy, not J-Street, which the New York Times misleadingly labels "moderate."
I would disagree with Adelson's characterization of Fayyad as a "terrorist," but I don't believe Fayyad is as reasonable as the New York Times believes.
But are the views of Adelson and Mitt Romney regarding the Middle East not enlightened?
The PA does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Accordingly, the introduction to the PA Ministry of Information's book stresses that correct Palestinian language must be chosen in order to avoid language that recognizes Israel's existence as "natural". Using the Israeli terminology:
"turns the essence of the Zionist endeavor (i.e., Israeli statehood) from a racist, colonialist endeavor into an endeavor of self-definition and independence for the Jewish People."
Palestinians are encouraged to use terms that indicate that Israel is the result of "a racist, colonialist endeavor," and the book instructs Palestinians never to use the name "Israel" alone but instead to use the term "Israeli colonialism." To use "Israel" by itself is damaging, according to the PA, because to do so "describes Israel as a natural state."
Whether or not a Palestinian state is a "stepping stone" to Israel's destruction, the people running it certainly believe that it is. However, a report last year in the New York Times downplayed the incitement in the official Palestinian media. Is the New York Times suggesting that it is "enlightened" to ignore the threats and extremism that is regularly published in the official Palestinian Authority media?
Maybe when the editors of the New York Times look for "enlightenment" in the Middle East, they really mean "obliviousness."
2) What Nathan Thrall wants
An activist working for the International Crisis Group, Nathan Thrall has penned, The Third Intifada is Inevitable for the New York Times. EARLIER this month, at a private meeting with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his security advisers, a group of Middle East experts and former intelligence officers warned that a third Palestinian intifada was imminent. The immediate catalyst, they said, could be another mosque vandalized by Jewish settlers, like the one burned on Tuesday, or the construction of new settlement housing. Whatever the fuse, the underlying source of ferment in the West Bank is a consensus that the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has reached a dead end. This meeting was so significant that it wasn't even reported in the New York Times. I have little interest in paying Ha'aretz for the content, but the Xinhua News Agency summarized the report. Here's an interesting bit from the summary:
Netanyahu was presented with statistics showing that the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987 and the second intifada in 2000 were both preceded by mass violence and violence perpetrated by individuals, and that a similar trend is currently visible.
Really, is this what "experts" argued to Netanyahu? I'm not an expert and I know at least one of those assertions is false. We know for certain now that the so-called "Aqsa intifada" was orchestrated by Arafat; it was not some spontaneous outpouring of frustration.
In an interview on PA TV, Suha Arafat explained that Arafat ordered her to leave the PA areas "because he had already decided to carry out an Intifada." In a program about Arafat on PA TV, Nabil Shaath, member of Fatah Central Committee explained that "[Arafat] saw that repeating the first Intifada in new forms, would bring the necessary popular, international, and Arab pressure upon Israel." After the terror campaign started in 2000, during the years of conflict and since it ended in 2005, different PA leaders have recognized and confirmed Arafat's responsibility for planning and directing the terror campaign.
In fact prior to the intifada Barak made an unprecedented peace offer to Arafat that Arafat rejected!
After painting Abbas as a moderate, committed to peace, Thrall continues:
As the gap between the Palestinian president’s words and actions has grown, so has the distance of his policies from public sentiment, leading to his government’s turn to greater repression: torturing political opponents, blocking Web sites and arresting journalists and bloggers critical of Mr. Abbas. Even Mr. Abbas’s close advisers confide that he is at risk of becoming another Antoine Lahad, the leader of Israel’s proxy force during its occupation of southern Lebanon. The chief steward of Mr. Abbas’s policies, the unelected prime minister, Salam Fayyad, has acknowledged, “I think we are losing the argument, if we have not already lost.” And Mr. Abbas himself has admitted that the peace process is “jammed” and that his government had merely helped create “a good situation” for Israel, which, enjoying years of unprecedented cooperation with Palestinian forces in the West Bank, lacks incentives to agree to any change.
It's good that someone in the New York Times is acknowledging Abbas's growing authoritarian streak, but it isn't being done to protect Israel. It's a matter of protecting himself as reports of his wealth grow, he'd really rather keep talk of how much foreign aid has gone to enriching himself and his family at a minimum.
If the peace process is jammed, it is due to Abbas's own actions. It is Abbas who has refused to negotiate with Netanyahu in anticipation of American pressure. It is Abbas who didn't negotiate in good faith even during a ten month "settlement" freeze two years ago. It is Abbas who attempted the statehood bid at the UN last year that changed nothing.
Thrall argues that it is only violence that advances Palestinian statehood:
The second option is armed confrontation. Although there is widespread apathy among Palestinians, and hundreds of thousands are financially dependent on the Palestinian Authority’s continued existence, a substantial number would welcome the prospect of an escalation, especially many supporters of Hamas, who argue that violence has been the most effective tactic in forcing Israel and the international community to act. THEY believe that rocks, Molotov cocktails and mass protests pushed Israel to sign the Oslo Accords in 1993; that deadly strikes against Israeli troops in Lebanon led Israel to withdraw in 2000; that the bloodshed of the second intifada pressured George W. Bush to declare his support for Palestinian statehood and prodded the international community to produce the Arab Peace Initiative, the Geneva Initiative, and the Road Map for Middle East Peace. They are also convinced that arms pressured Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, to evacuate settlers and troops from Gaza in 2005. That pullout also had the effect of freezing the peace process, supplying “the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary,” as a Sharon adviser put it, “so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
Sure, Thrall wouldn't say that he advocates violence, he's just quoting others who do. But what's missing from this selective history?
By 1993, the intifada was largely over. Maybe Israel fled Lebanon due to the political pressure that resulted from losing too many soldiers, but the withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah and didn't bring peace to Lebanon or Israel. The withdrawal from Gaza came after Sheikh Yassin and Dr. Rantissi were killed and terror from Gaza hard dropped significantly. Of course that withdrawal was followed by the strengthening of Hamas that led to southern Israel being targeted by thousands of rockets.
Thrall leaves out essential facts that would tell a much different story than the one he wants to tell.
This is, again, a willful blindness on the part of people who are so wed to the idea that peace with Hamas must be possible that logic and facts go out the window just to prove the unprovable. People to whom the "peace process" is a religion cannot lose their faith, so they must spin more and more crazy theories just to shore up their "flat Earth"-style beliefs. Sorry. The earth is round, Obama was born in Hawaii, 9/11 wasn't an inside job and real peace between Israel and Islamic movements like Hamas is impossible. Hamas and other Islamist movements must be defeated, not embraced. While victory is difficult, as in any war, it is imperative.
So in one year he's gone from calling Hamas "moderate" to arguing that moderation towards Israel won't bring peace. Based on these two op-eds one could conclude that Nathan Thrall advocates for those who promote violence against Israel. Is that the sort of "enlightenment" that the New York Times strives for?
Thrall works for the International Crisis Group, which is appropriate. Those following his advice will likely find themselves in even worse crises than they were before.
3) What Kirkpatrick wants
Over the past few months, the New York Times has featured an ongoing series called "The New Islamists." The chief reporter for this series is David Kirkpatrick. In a recent question and answer forum, this is what Kirkpatrick wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood:
In the long run, it is hard to say for sure. But many in the West have a lot of mistaken impressions about the Brotherhood. It is at its base a religious revival group committed to a bottom-up and gradual approach to moving the culture in a more Islamic direction. Their platform carefully avoids any hint of restrictions on personal behavior or liberties. Rather, it seems to suggest the Brotherhood would try to nudge Egyptian culture in a more conservative direction by public and private example. For instance, the Brotherhood would not restrict the content of films but it might subsidize films that expressed traditional Islamic values. And it would allow Islamic charities and religious groups more freedom to spread their own messages. Its leaders are not clerics or religious scholars. Almost all have advanced degrees in medicine or the natural sciences. (Mohamed Morsi, the presidential candidate, got his PhD in materials engineering at the University of Southern California.) They are politicians. Under Mubarak, the Brotherhood played a growing role as an elected bloc of the Parliament, and unlike the ruling party its lawmakers acted like real politicians — they sought the views of their constituents, studied the issues and introduced legislation, and over time moved toward the middle. They are committed to democratic elections and the peaceful rotation of political power, which usually means moving to the middle. Most of all the Brotherhood has been very clear that it sees turning around Egypt’s economy as its top priority, before any cultural issues. This is simply an accurate reading of the political realities if they expect to compete to be re-elected. But they also see their constituency as the middle to upper middle class, including the owners of small and medium-sized businesses.
This should be taken as Kirkpatrick's statement of purpose. He believes that Westerners fundamentally misunderstand Islamists. Islamists coming to power, according to Kirkpatrick, understand that they will get nowhere if they don't govern effectively and that their interest in promoting (or coercing) religion will be secondary to their interest in good government.
It is important to keep Kirkpatrick's announced bias in mind whenever reading one of his reports. Today he reports from Libya, Libya Democracy Clashes With Fervor for Jihad. In this dispatch there is a conflict between a moderate Islamist and an extreme Islamist.
In an unfolding contest here over the future of the Islamist movement, Mr. Hasadi’s vision of peaceful change appears ascendant. For the West, his success may represent the greatest promise of the Arab Spring, that political participation could neutralize the militant strand of Islam that has called thousands to fight and die in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That hope for democracy, however, is now imperiled by lawlessness in Libya, signs of sectarian war in Syria and military rule in Egypt. In Egypt, especially, the generals’ attempts to thwart an Islamist electoral victory could validate militant arguments about the futility of democratic reform. Some in the West fear militants will find new staging grounds. In Darnah, which the United States Army says sent more jihadis to fight the United States in Iraq than any other town its size, Mr. Qumu and other militants still command a following, according to local officials and residents. Many blame Islamist militants for a spate of violent crimes, including the bombing of Mr. Hasadi’s empty Mercedes-Benz.
Kirkpatrick does get credit for getting a great quote from one of his respondents:
“We want our politics to be like Israel,” said Mosab Benkamaial, 25, referring to the Jewish state’s melding of religious identity and electoral democracy. Mr. Benkamaial, who was captured by United States troops in Baghdad, now runs Darnah’s most popular restaurant, a kebab grill called Popeye’s.
It is nice to see an Arab who (apparently) thinks that Israel is a model democracy. I get the impression that that would put him at odds with much of reporting staff and editorial board of the New York Times.
Later on, Kirkpatrick fills in more of Hasadi's profile:
Mr. Hasadi, the jihadi turned politician, boasted that he had just asked a woman to become his fourth wife. He recommended that the West try Islamic corporal punishments, like cutting off thieves’ hands, as a deterrent. But he is trying to broaden his appeal. Once a schoolteacher, he leads prayers at a local mosque, hosts television and radio programs and courts the local and international news media. He says the Taliban were wrong to restrict the careers of women (they will vote in Libya). He and Mr. Qumu remain friends, Mr. Hasadi said, and he was working on persuading Mr. Qumu to trust in democracy and lay down his weapons, or at least take down the jihadi flag over his compound.
Polygamy and punitive amputations are not usually associated with Western liberalism. But is Hasadi really changed? Or under the conciliatory veneer presented to a reporter from the New York Times, is there a more aggressive Islamist lurking?
According to Al Jazeera, the network recommended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as fair and balanced, Abdul al-Hakim al-Hasadi, also known as Abdelhakim Belhaj, has been named commander of the Tripoli Military Council. He was formerly head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an al-Qaeda affiliate. Moderates are understandably nervous. In 1999, the group’s spokesman praised Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and said: “The United States no longer relies on its agents to constrict the Islamic tide; it has taken this role upon itself.” One of its former leaders worked to plan the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, resulting in massive loss of life. In 2003, members were involved in an al-Qaeda terror attack in Morocco. ... At any rate, the group was still designated as terrorist by the U.S. government. Here it is on the terrorism list (number 26, in alphabetical order) released by the State Department last May.
Has Hasadi changed?
Kirkpatrick didn't ask him anything about his ties to Al Qaeda. It's hard to know how aggressively Kirkpatrick interviewed Hasadi. The record of the Western media and the New York Times in particular in Libya suggests that Kirkpatrick didn't ask anything that he didn't want to know the answer to.
Well, what a surprise. The 'Palestinian' hero Marwan Barghouti 'sold out' his boss, Yasser Arafat by giving Israel's Shin Bet the smoking gun that proved that Arafat was paying for the intifada.
After some hesitation, Barghouti provided the Shin Bet information that incriminated him and other senior members of Fatah's military wing. He confessed to transferring funds, some that arrived from Arafat's office, to leaders of the terror groups. In some incidents he funded the purchase of weapons and in others he received reports on the terror attacks.
In one incident – the shooting attack in which an Israeli citizen was killed near Givat Ze'ev – Barghouti confessed that he ordered the attack as revenge for the assassination of a senior Fatah official.
As to Arafat, the investigators were eager to get a "smoking gun" that would indicate that he gave clear instructions for terror attacks in Israel. Barghouti claimed that Arafat hinted his policy to the activists, who well understood his intentions, but said that the former Palestinian premier never gave direct orders to carry out terror attacks.
Barghouti said during his investigation that he chose to take part in the terror attacks against the Israel Defense Forces and settlers, among other things to bolster his reputation among public opinion in the West Bank. He said his decision was to give him priority over other leaders, who "didn't dirty their hands."
Barghouti said he opposed "gifts" from Israel and said, that, "A state should be established (on its own) and part of the process is bloodshed."
In two of the last investigations recorded in the documents, that took place on May 10 and 11, the investigators pressured Barghouti to give up information on Arafat. Barghouti responded, "But from the very fact that Arafat expressed opposition to carrying out attacks inside Israel, had he been opposed to the armed struggle inside the territories against the occupation, he would have made sure to transmit a specific order about that to all those involved."
The investigators continued pressuring Barghouti. "I explained to the subject that until he tells the truth about Abu Amar's (Arafat) part in launching attacks, his interrogation won't end."
Barghouti responded, "There was no need for direct instructions from Arafat. Things were understood between the lines. When Arafat would call for a cease-fire, he would convene the heads of Tanzim and instruct them and add that if the cease-fire were to end, they knew what they would have to do, when it was clear to everyone that he was talking about a continuation of military activity."
Did anyone ever believe it was otherwise? Arafat was the master of 'plausible deniability,' and while he continued to have it after this was discovered, it was clear to anyone with his eyes open that the denials were false.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, September 26, 2011.
1) An ad Thomas Friedman would support. Wouldn't he?
Thomas Friedman is forever complaining about America's "addiction" to oil. It's a silly use of the term, though others (including President Bush) have adopted. A new ad promoting the recovery of oil from oil sands "vexes the Saudis." I sure can see why.
Advocates of oil sand production are arguing that the human rights record of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern oil exporters makes oil sands a more ethical energy source, particularly for the United States. How successful they will be with Americans remains to be seen. But their argument has clearly caught the attention of the government of Saudi Arabia. Canada’s largest private broadcaster, CTV, has refused to show a television commercial produced by the Ethical Oil Institute, an oil sands advocacy group, after receiving a threat of legal action from a lawyer representing the Saudis. Lawyers for the Saudis have contacted other broadcasters as well in an effort to block the 30-second advertisement. So far, the main result of the Saudis’ effort has been unexpected publicity for the ad, which had previously been seen only by a relatively small cable television audience, and as a minor diplomatic dispute.
The great problem here is that elections are the most likely means of arresting the downward spiral. Five of the leading six candidates for president are responsible secular centrists; the runaway favorite, so far, is former foreign minister and Arab League general secretary Amr Moussa. Moussa may be a recent convert to liberal democracy, and he is known for striking populist poses against Israel. But he would almost certainly run a better government than the military and give the economy a chance to recover.True, Islamist parties may win a plurality in the parliamentary elections. Estimates of their potential vote range from 10 to 40 percent. But that still means they would hold a minority of seats; and the Islamists themselves are divided into several factions. The strongest of them recognize that they will not be able to force a fundamentalist agenda on Egypt’s secular middle class or its large Christian minority, at least in the short and medium terms.What about Israel? Moussa was recently quoted as saying that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is “untouchable” and that thesacking of the Israeli embassy in Cairo this month was “unacceptable.” Every major political party in Cairo has denounced the embassy attack, and while some have called for renegotiating the treaty’s security provisions, none wants to cancel it. The mob that attacked the embassy was largely composed not of political revolutionaries but of soccer hooligans who had gathered in the center of Cairo because they were angry at being harassed by police. When they marched on the embassy,police at first did nothing to stop them.
Diehl is a pretty serious journalist, so it's disappointing that he falls back on the otherwise apolitical "soccer hooligan" story when, in fact the embassy raid was approved by the Muslim Brotherhood (at least after the fact). Recent reports also suggest that Diehl's confidence about the security of the Coptic population is misplaced. Victor Davis Hanson asks Can Israel survive?
The Arab Middle East damns Israel for not granting a “right of return” to Palestinians who have not lived there in nearly 70 years. But it keeps embarrassed silence about the more than half-million Jews whom Arab dictatorships much later ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, and Cairo, and sent back into Israel. On cue, the Palestinian ambassador to the United States again brags that there will be no Jews allowed in his newly envisioned and American-subsidized Palestinian state — a boast with eerie historical parallels. By now we know both what will start and what will deter yet another conflict in the Middle East. In the past, wars broke out when the Arab states thought they could win them and stopped when they realized they could not. But now a new array of factors — ever more Islamist enemies of Israel such as Turkey and Iran, ever more likelihood of frontline Arab Islamist governments, ever more fear of Islamic terrorism, ever more unabashed anti-Semitism, ever more petrodollars flowing into the Middle East, ever more prospects of nuclear Islamist states, and ever more indifference by Europe and the United States — has probably convinced Israel’s enemies that finally they can win what they could not in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006.
While the Iranian threat looms larger, is Israel really more isolated now? In late 2000 after Arafat started the "Aqsa intifada" and Hezbollah violated the international border to kidnap and kill three Israeli soldiers, things seemed rather bleak. (I believe that Yossi Klein Halevi wrote an article then about the sense of foreboding over the various threats.) In 2002, when Israel finally struck back against Arafat's suicide factory, charges of Israeli brutality were broadcast non-stop, Arab leaders claimed that their people were horrified by the destruction they saw and everyone, advised restraint. Years of Israeli forbearance were quickly forgotten. (Israel did eliminate a terror threat, something tacitly acknowledged when reporter and pundits praise the Palestinian police force for keeping the peace. Omitted is any explicit acknowledgment that Defensive Shield made maintaining order possible.) I'm convinced that despite the current problems, Israel isn't going to worry about winning popularity contests and will be focused on surviving. For 18 years now, Israeli concessions have been cheerfully accepted only to be forgotten quickly when someone needs a reason to explain the failure of the peace process. As Barry Rubin recently wrote:
The Western world has shown Israel that it makes no sense for Israel to make more concessions or take risks because in general they are not going to change their perception that Israel is at fault for the lack of peace and has not shown its desire for peace after 20 years of strenuous Israeli efforts to negotiate peace. This is also despite the fact that Israel has made huge concessions, withdrawn from territory, and advocated talks on almost a daily basis. You are about to betray every previous commitment to Israel made in the peace process in exchange for its risks, concessions, and compromises--risks that have brought the death of hundreds of Israelis.
So yes, Israel is facing dangers. But I think that Israel has learned the risks of depending on its friends.
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
