There's a special election in Florida's 19th Congressional district next Tuesday. Florida 19 includes large parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties (I've been there myself - went to a meeting in Boca Raton about ten years ago and have flown out of West Palm Beach's less expensive airport several times), which have large Jewish populations. The district was represented for the last 13 years by Obama confidant Bob Wexler, who resigned in October to head up J Street's 'think tank.' Wexler, to whom I have referred as an Obama kapo, was convinced last July that Israel would say yes to a 'settlement freeze.'
The election pits Democrat Ted Deutch, Republican Ed Lynch and Independent Jim McCormack against each other. Last Thursday, there was a contest in the Orlando Sentinel to see which one was more pro-Israel.
Causes related to Israel were a central part of Democrat Ted Deutch’s civic activities before he was elected to public office.
“I have spent my entire adult life as a leader, as a national leader in the pro-Israel community. I have been to Israel many times. I understand from these visits and from my involvement in the community, the threats that Israel faces,” he said.
“This is something that I care about deeply. That I have for my entire life. I look forward to being a leader on preserving the U.S.-Israel relationship and Israel’s security in Congress, just as I have been a leader on these issues in the community.”
...
Republican Ed Lynch said he’d be far better on Israel than Deutch, who is Jewish.
“Jewish people are able to understand that just because someone’s Jewish does not mean that they have the best interests of Israel in mind and just because someone isn’t Jewish doesn’t mean that they don’t,” he said.
“I’m the only candidate that will stand up and take the tough stance that America needs to take with regards to Israel. I’m the only candidate who will say Israel needs to be able to defend herself. And I’m the only candidate to say with friends like America, Israel doesn’t need any enemies. And we are doing Israel a great injustice,” he said.
“We have countries that threaten to kill Israel, that threaten to kill us, like Iran, and we impose wimpy sanctions on them [and create a] situation where Israel cannot defend herself.”
...
Here’s how Jim McCormick, who is running with no party affiliation, answered the question, Why are you best on the issue of Israel?
“One of the reasons why is although I’m not Jewish, I think that Israel is and always has been and always should be one of our greatest democratic allies. They are in an area that still believes in beheadings and no women’s rights. Here we have this democratic beacon of hope and we should be standing behind them. But at the same time one of our biggest problems is that we have always told them what to do.
“They cannot grow as a nation, mature if we are always standing behind them telling them what to do…. We really do need to step back from them. We really do need to let the rest of the world know, the Middle East know, we will back her financially, militarily should the need be.”
McCormick said the U.S. needs to work harder for sanctions against Iran. “A military option is a long way off. I think we have plenty of diplomatic and economic options, but I think that no option should be taken off the table.”
On Sunday, there was a debate on This Week in South Florida and the Israel issue exploded. Here's part of that debate.
Let's go to the videotape.
Note that what Lynch is defining as 'sanctions against Israel' is the Obama administration's de factoembargo on weapons sales to Israel.
In statements issued by both sides on Monday to the Orlando Sentinel, Deutch pretends that embargo does not exist and instead focuses on Lynch's use of the word 'sanctions.' Here's Deutch:
On the show, Ed Lynch made the appalling claim that the United States has imposed sanctions against Israel and that the sanctions against Israel are greater than those imposed on Iran. These remarks were made just days after Lynch told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that "with friends like America, Israel doesn’t need any enemies." State Senator Ted Deutch released the following statement in reaction to Ed Lynch's outrageous remarks.
"Ed Lynch's repeated disparagement of the relationship between Israel and the United States displays a dangerous level of ignorance on an issue that so many residents of Florida's 19th district care about deeply," said Deutch. "His appalling claim that the United States has imposed sanctions on Israel, sanctions that are tougher than those imposed on Iran, is an affront to so many pro-Israel activists who have worked tirelessly to exert real economic pressure on Ahmadinejad's regime and to sustain the overwhelming bipartisan support for the strongest possible U.S.-Israel relationship, a strategic relationship benefiting both Israel and America.
"I firmly believe that an undivided Jerusalem is and shall remain the capital of the Jewish State of Israel and that the United States should exert pressure on the Palestinians to halt incitement and return to the negotiating table without precondition, just as the Israeli government has. But questioning the commitment of our entire nation to Israel's security by fabricating statements about newly-imposed sanctions shows that Mr. Lynch's interest in Israel's security is political above all else. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has himself come forward to denounce recent political attacks and to reinforce the fact that momentary disagreements of opinion between friends do not threaten the longstanding relationship between our two nations. It is dangerous for my opponent to lead the world to believe that America is now in some way an enemy of the Jewish state. I hope Mr. Lynch will join my longstanding efforts to impose crippling sanctions against Iran in order to prevent the bellicose regime of Ahmadinejad from becoming a nuclear power."
And here's Lynch's response.
Imagine if a foreign government told the United States that we could no longer have building construction in Washington D.C. for either residential or commercial purposes. Making matters worse, the failure to obey such an order would result in the loss of important military contracts for aircraft that were critical to our national security. As arrogant and absurd a power play as this sounds, this is exactly what the Obama Administration has told the Israeli Government, and Senator Ted Deutch's silence on this important matter is telling, signaling his agreement with President Obama.
The Obama administration has continued to single out Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu for diplomatic humiliation while it goes about marginalizing our historic and strategic relationship with Israel at such a critical time. From his Secretary of State's dressing down of Prime Minister Netanyahu, to the President's own disrespectful treatment by refusing to dine with PM Netanyahu while he was his guest in the White House, there is simply no justification for such pettiness and antipathy towards Israel. This conduct comes from a President who as a candidate advertised himself as a person that would talk to any world leader, anytime, and anyplace, supposedly to make our enemies less confrontational and the world more secure. Instead, as President Obama cozies up to thuggish foreign dictators such as Hugo Chavez, he has abandoned Israel and placed it on a par with its mortal enemies such as Iran- simply naïve and unacceptable conduct, displaying an arrogance that is unbefitting of an American President towards a democratic ally.
"While Ted Deutch will 'defend' Israel with mere rhetoric, the person he needs to defend Israel from is his own President that he continues to support. Saying you are a "friend" of Israel has much more to do than being its tourist or boasting that you've met with countless Israeli leaders. Friends tell friends the truth. The truth is that President Obama, the same president Ted Deutch says he supports, is the most anti-Israeli President in this country's history, but Ted will not speak the truth. President Obama's approval rating amongst Israelis is about 5%. Senator Deutch has continued to avoid answering all of the hard questions about Israel throughout the entire campaign, and voters should realize that this evasiveness is both weakness and opportunism- there is already too much of that kind of unprincipled conduct in Congress," said Edward Lynch, candidate for Congress in Florida's 19th Congressional District.
As you may recall, Lynch answered my non-standard questions that are designed to flesh out the extent of a candidate's support for Israel. If Ted Deutch or Jim McCormick wants to answer them, I'd be happy to post the answers. But as far as I can tell, Ed Lynch is the most pro-Israel candidate in Florida 19.
Democratic candidate in Fla. afraid to defend Obama's Middle East policies
I got this press release during the night from the the campaign of Ed Lynch for Congress in the 19th district in Florida.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
team@electlynch.com
Ted Deutch- Running Scared, Afraid To Defend His Support Of Obama's Reckless Israel Policy
West Palm Beach FL, March 8, 2010-- Not long ago, Senator Ted Deutch proudly declared that he would be a "loyal supporter of President Barack Obama's domestic efforts as well as his international efforts on Iran and Afghanistan." But given the opportunity to defend those international efforts on Iran and its implications for Israel, Senator Deutch seems to have lost the courage of his convictions. With Israel's national security directly threatened by an Iranian regime that proudly broadcasts to the world that it is now a nuclear power, it is a very troubling development when a candidate for Congress cannot even summon the minimum amount of courage to display leadership on matters that can affect the lives of millions.
The fact of the matter is that by embracing President Obama's policy towards Iran, Senator Deutch also embraces President Obama's policy towards Israel- a policy which has effectively scuttled our historic strategic alliance with Israel and marginalized our ally in an attempt to curry favor with oppressive Arab states, some of which still support terrorism. While President Obama offers his rhetoric to the contrary, the fact remains that not only is President Obama content to allow Iran to acquire nuclear arms, he goes to great lengths dictate to Israel, our historic ally, as to what their domestic policies should be, while only giving lip service to the Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians regarding their obligation to reject terrorism. It was the naïveté of President Obama who foolishly believed that engagement with the current Iranian without preconditions would lead to better relations with Iran. President Obama's moral equivalence has led him to the conclusion that Israel, our longstanding democratic ally, deserves no more deference than do the oppressive, terror sponsoring regimes throughout the Middle East.
Regardless of Senator Deutch's lack of leadership on this issue, the fact remains that Israel is confronted with a very real danger from the current Iranian regime which desires nothing less than its destruction. President Obama continues to make conciliatory gestures to the Iranians even as its leadership and its mullahs continue developing nuclear weapons, sponsoring terrorism, and oppressing freedom-seeking Iranians. If Senator Deutch can't summon the courage to speak at a public forum to discuss the imminent threat that now confronts Israel and explain why the Obama Administration's policy towards Israel is misinformed and reckless- how can anyone expect Senator Deutch to display the necessary leadership in Congress to stand on principle and stand with Israel, rather than vouch for a naïve American President whose policies are jeopardizing Israel's national security?
You can find Lynch's answers to my questions here.
I urge any of you who have the right to vote in Florida's 19th district to overcome your instinct to vote Democrat and pull the lever for Republican Ed Lynch on April 13.
EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Edward Lynch, Republican for Congress in Florida 19
When I posted my question list earlier, I told you all that it had been written at the request of another candidate in a congressional election. I never thought I'd have the answers so quickly.
Ed Lynch is the Republican candidate in the Special Election taking place in Florida's 19th Congressional District on April 13. That's the district that's been represented until now by Obama's buddy Bob Wexler. Ed Lynch would be an incredible improvement for pro-Israel voters. Here are the questions and answers:
1. Do you believe that there is a solution to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, and if so what is it?
Unfortunately, at this point in time, until the hearts and minds, as well as the concrete actions of the leaders of the Palestinian Authority genuinely change- from both Fatah and Hamas members- there will be no solution or lasting peace, and Israel will be forced to defend its citizens proactively and root out terrorism.
2. If you believe that solution is what is commonly referred to as the 'two-state solution,' why do you believe it hasn't happened to date? Do you anticipate any change in the circumstances that have prevented the two-state solution from happening and if so, what and when?
Personally, I have advocated a one-state solution consistently out on the campaign trail because of the realities on the ground that are presented to Israel at this juncture. However, the matter remains one for the Israeli Government and Prime Minister Netanyahu to decide. PM Netanyahu has unfortunately, but probably without any other recourse, deferred to President Barack Obama and accepted the two-state “solution” publicly in spite of the fact that he most likely opposes it in private. PM Netanyahu has also suspended Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria in another attempt to placate the Obama administration, and in spite of the fact that the PA are not credible interlocutors and are manifestly corrupt. Moving forward, it is wise not to grant any further concessions to the PA, and continue to insist that they stop supporting terrorism.
3. What do you think the United States ought to be doing to help Israel live in peace and security with its neighbors, and do you believe that the Obama administration is doing it? If not, what should they be doing differently?
I believe the Obama Administration should stop meddling within Israel’s internal affairs as to how they should deal with terrorism, settlements, and construction related matters. No, I do not believe the Obama Administration is helping Israel, as its moral equivalence is undermining Israel and placing it on equal footing with rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria, as well as the with the Palestinian Authority, all of whom do not have a genuine interest in a real peace process.
4. Do you believe that the United States should be pressuring Israel not to build on the West Bank? In East Jerusalem?
The United States should not pressure Israel as to how to govern its internal domestic affairs, as it is the only functioning democracy in the region that respects the basic human rights of all its people. The recent archeological discovers in East Jerusalem strengthen Israel’s claims to sovereignty over that part of Jerusalem.
5. What do you believe the United States ought to be doing about Iran?
We need to be prepared to enforce a naval blockade and provide military assistance to Israel at it attempts to stave off a mortal threat to its existence. Anything less than this is phony posturing, and we would not be living up to our historic alliance with Israel if we failed to offer tangible assistance- military, diplomatic, and political- to one of our closest allies in the world, and the only representative democracy in the Middle East, to save it from this mortal threat to its existence.
6. Do you support sanctions against Iran? If so, what types of sanctions should the United States pursue? Should sanctions be imposed in cooperation with the United Nations? Would you support them being imposed unilaterally?
While tightening sanctions is laudable, sanctions on our end will not accomplish their intended effect when Germany and other countries are cutting new deals with Iran, and other nations are continuing to do business with the regime. What is problematic about my opponent’s position on the matter of Iran, as well as his Party’s in general, is their reluctance or unwillingness articulate or support measures against Iran that are more confrontational and disruptive to counter the hostility of the Iranian regime as we draw nearer and nearer to what unfortunately looks like an inevitable conflict. The UN is a non-starter for Israel, as it has consistently voted against Israel’s interests in the region time and time again.
7. Would you support Israel taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?
Yes.
8. Would you support the United States taking military action to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Under what circumstances?
Yes.
9. Would you be willing to work with the pro-Israel, pro-peace J Street lobby?
It’s easy for any person or organization to say that they’re “pro-Israel” or “pro-peace”. What is not easy is to demonstrate consistent and principled moral clarity in the face of a determined enemy that spreads hatred and seeks your destruction. I will work with any organization that properly understands that Israel is confronting a direct existential threat from a regime that cannot be negotiated with.
Sounds like he reads my blog. Hmmm.
One question left: Can the Jews of Florida 19 overcome their natural instincts to pull the lever for the Democrat regardless of how much better the Republican is?
Fatah boasts about lynching two Israeli soldiers in 2000
One of the most heinous acts of the early days of the 'intifadeh' was the lynch of two Israeli soldiers in a Ramallah police station in October 2000.
On October 12, 2000, two Israeli soldiers (Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami[1]), entered Ramallah and were arrested by the Palestinian Authority police. According to Israeli sources, the men were reservists, who on their way to reporting for duty entered Ramallah by mistake; Palestinian sources claimed that the men were armed and "dressed in civilian clothes, apparently on an undercover operation"[2], but their bodies in military uniform can be seen in photographs[3] and in video footage broadcast later on the TV. It was also reported that rumours were "circulating through the mob that the captives belonged to the feared and hated undercover units of the Israeli army which dress as Arabs" [4].
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, and beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. Then, the mob abused the bodies and dragged them in the street. The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew (Mediaset) and broadcast on TV; the famous picture of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image. The brutality of the killings shocked the Israeli public[5] and were condemned by Palestinian leaders; Marwan Barghouti described them as "an unbelievable act, which should be condemned by everybody." Mark Seager, a British photographer who was the only journalist to witness the lynchings stated "I know they are not all like this and I'm a very forgiving person but I'll never forget this. It was murder of the most barbaric kind. When I think about it, I see that man's head, all smashed. I know that I'll have nightmares for the rest of my life",[6] and the BBC stated "the brutal death of these men - in full glare of TV - will have a lasting impact on the Israeli population and abroad."[7]
This week, our 'peace partners' from the 'moderate' Fatah terrorist organization bragged about that incident on 'Palestinian' television.
As PMW reported earlier this week, PA (Fatah) TV marked the second anniversary of the Hamas takeover of Gaza by broadcasting a public Fatah event that focuses on vilifying Hamas. One part of this performance features a graphic video of Hamas members brutally beating a Fatah member in Gaza.
Another part criticizes and mocks Hamas for the decrease in its terror operations against Israel, glorifies Fatah terror, and ends with Fatah boasting that they "arrested two soldiers in Ramallah," a reference to the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli reservists.
In this scene actors portray a Hamas teacher and student supporters of Fatah and Hamas, debating which movement is greater. Significantly, the competition between Fatah and Hamas supporters is based not on who has built more Palestinian infrastructures, nor on who has promoted peace, but rather on who can take credit for more terror.
The debate ends when a Fatah student trumps Hamas's boast of having kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by mentioning the "arrest of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah" by the PA-Fatah. This alludes to the lynching and gruesome murder of two Israeli reservist soldiers who accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city in October 2000. While the picture of a Palestinian celebrating the killing by waving his bloody hands to the mob horrified the world, the murder remains a source of pride for Fatah.
[Note: Seated in the front row at the event are Fatah leaders, including Muhammad Dahlan, former head of PA security; Kadura Faras, head of the PA Prisoners' Association; Nasser Al-Qidwa, former PA Minister of Foreign Affairs; Samir Al-Mashharawi, senior Fatah official; and others.]
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's a transcript:
Fatah student taunts Hamas: "Since Hamas seized power, we haven't heard of any Martyrdom operation [suicide-bombing]." Hamas teacher: "It's called 'fighter's rest'." Fatah student: "A Hamas fighter needs rest, but a Fatah fighter doesn't need rest?!" Hamas teacher: "Every fighter has the right to rest." Fatah student: "Why is it that when Fatah stops fighting, you [Hamas] say they're cowards, but when Hamas stops fighting, you say it's 'fighters' rest'?" Hamas teacher: "I don't know much about resistance [terror] and fighters..." Fatah student: "The first shot was fired by the PLO; the first Jihad was carried out by the PLO [audience applauds], with all the other factions - but Hamas always opposed. Hamas student: "What do you say about Hamas having kidnapped the [Israeli] soldier Shalit [still held hostage - Ed.]?" Hamas teacher: "Ahaaa!" Student: "By Allah, it's good." Hamas student: "Did Fatah ever capture a soldier?!" Fatah student: "It was the [other] brigades who captured him [Shalit] and sold him to you [Hamas]. It's a deal that you [Hamas] made for your own benefit, not for the [Palestinian] people's benefit. [Applause] Fatah student: Remember, in Ramallah the [PA-Fatah] police arrested two soldiers - have you forgotten, teacher?!" [A reference to the lynching in Ramallah in October 2000- Ed.]
They're preparing their 'people' for peace, eh Barack?
A 'settlement freeze' is what's holding up peace, eh Barack?
State Department Arabists rush to defend one of their own
Matt Yglesias quotes a letter published in the Wall Street Journal from a group of State Department Arabists who have rushed to the defense of one of their own: Chas Freeman (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
A number of statements have appeared objecting to the appointment of Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council based on his political views (”Obama’s Intelligence Choice,” by Gabriel Schoenfeld, op-ed, Feb. 25). We, the undersigned former U.S. ambassadors, have known Chas Freeman for many years during his service to the nation in war and peace and in some of our most difficult posts. We recognize that Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share. Many individuals with strong and well-known views have, and are being asked, to serve in positions of high responsibility.
The free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual. We commend President Obama and Admiral Dennis C. Blair for appointing Ambassador Freeman to such an important position.
The authors are Thomas Pickering (ambassador to Jordan, then Nigeria, then El Salvador, then Israel, then the United Nations, then India, then Russia before serving as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs) and Ronald E. Neumann (Ambassador to Algeria and Bahrain who George W. Bush made Ambassador to Afghanistan) and is also signed by Samuel W. Lewis (various ambassadorships and head of Policy Planning at State), Ronald Spiers, Nicholas A. Veliotes, Brandon Grove, William C. Harrop, Robert E. Hunter, Thomas D. Boyatt, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Harry G. Barnes, Jr, Avis Bohlen, Howard B. Schaffer, Edward M. Rowell, Robert V. Keeley, James R. Jones, and Patricia Lynch-Ewell.
Yglesias views this letter as 'proof' that "a broadly realist orientation is pretty widespread among military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals."
What the letter proves (again) is that State Department professionals are guilty of a group-think that is detached from morality and American values. This Foggy Bottom phenomenon - which finds its most prominent expression in State's Arabist bent - was documented by Robert Kaplan in a seminal article published in the Atlantic Monthly in August 1992. That article, which is much longer than the quotes below, depicts the State Department Arabists as being afflicted with a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in which they fall in love with - and become representatives of - the countries to which they are posted. Read the quotes below for a flavor, and if you haven't before, please consider reading the whole thing. For you young people who need some background, the article was written as a post-mortem attempt to discover why the US had totally misread Saddam Hussein's intentions just prior to his August 1990 invasion of Kuwait - an act that eventually perpetrated the first Gulf War in January 1991. Listen to how these diplomats talk and their cold, amoral calculations. By the way, although I did not cite any of his quotes, Chas Freeman is quoted several times in the article.
Seelye's views regarding Israel may grow out of this collision. He belongs to a post-Second World War breed of U.S. diplomat that Peter Rodman, a longtime associate of Henry Kissinger's, labels "aggrieved area experts." This breed is perhaps best understood through the career of the late Loy Henderson. Henderson, along with George F. Kennan and Charles Bohlen, was a Kremlinologist whose reports from Moscow before and during the Second World War painted an extremely gloomy picture of Soviet life and Stalin's long-range intentions—a picture that ran counter to the rosy image of the Soviet Union entertained by many Americans back then. As a consequence, Henderson was ejected from the Soviet bureau at State. He wound up in the division for Near Eastern and African affairs, where he rose to become director at the time of Israel's creation—something he was dead set against. Henderson perceived Israel as an oil-less impediment to good relations with the oil-rich Arab world at a time when the United States was entering a long, difficult struggle with the Soviet Union. This was not anti-Semitism but just a cold-blooded exposition of what Henderson saw as U.S. interests. It happened to be a sentiment that fit snugly with the life experiences of Arabists of Seelye's generation. Older Arabists like to compare themselves to the Kennan-Bohlen-Henderson school of Kremlinologists. They argue that whereas those Soviet experts of yore were victimized for daring to report the negative aspects of the Russian reality, Arabists are victimized for daring to report the positive aspects of the Arab one.
A case in point: When Anwar Sadat came to power in Egypt, in 1970, Michael Sterner, one of Seelye's Arabist colleagues with experience in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, predicted that, as Sterner told me in an interview, "the new guy will not be a facsimile of Nasser but will take things in a different direction"—a point of view that at the time was criticized by the Israeli government and many of its U.S. supporters. Sterner, whose opinion was based on a personal relationship with Sadat, continues to regret that neither the Israelis in the early 1970s, prior to the Yom Kippur War, nor, at first, the Nixon Administration trusted Sadat's overtures. He showed me a montage from a 1971 edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz (The Land), depicting himself, Murphy, and a handful of other State Department Arabists in Lawrence of Arabia costumes. "This is how the Israelis ridiculed us," he said with a laugh.
"But there really was lots of localitis back then," recalls Richard Parker, who was a contemporary of Seelye's and Sterner's. Parker admits that he refused an opportunity in the 1960s to learn Hebrew and serve in Israel, "because it might have had an adverse effect on my career as an Arabist." Parker is studying Hebrew now, however—in retirement.
...
Prominently displayed in Newton's office are color photographs of himself and April Glaspie—his successor as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq—in the presidential palace in Baghdad, both smiling as they introduce Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz to a congressional delegation led by Senators Robert Dole and Alan K. Simpson. This was the occasion, a few months before the invasion of Kuwait, when Dole and Simpson apologized to Saddam Hussein for Voice of America broadcasts critical of his regime. "I keep these photos in the office as a teaching device: they fascinate my students," Newton told me. He seems to be a man completely at peace with himself, who talks easily and honestly about his mistakes.
"Saddam put a lot of emphasis on nation-building and the Westernization of the economy, which was popular. Because he had everybody scared, one would have thought that there was no reason for excess brutality. Obviously, the gassing of the Kurds [in March of 1988] affected my view. We worked on intuition, with very few sources."
"After the Kurds were gassed, why didn't you just pull out—close the embassy?" I asked, alluding to a conversation I had had some years back with Robert Keeley, a former ambasssdor to Greece who now heads the Middle East Institute, in Washington. Keeley shut the U.S. embassy in Uganda at the time of Idi Amin's reign of terror. "You maintain a diplomatic presence as long as you're effective," Keeley told me. "But in Uganda there came a point when we really were no longer able to have an effect. To be true to our own values, the only thing we could do was to leave, and scream about Amin from the outside."
Newton said, "That made sense for Uganda"—a landlocked country of no strategic or economic importance to the United States. "But it's naive to think you can just pull out of a militarily powerful and oil-rich developing country on the Gulf with which American companies were doing hundreds of millions of dollars of trade." What might have been accomplished in Iraq, according to Newton, was that over time, with U.S. help, "Iraq's level of repression could have been improved to that of Syria."
Arabist-bashers could have a lot of fun with that statement, reeking as it seems to of moral relativism. But it needs explaining. Despite several visits to Syria, I was shocked the first time I arrived in Iraq. In Damascus, I could walk into the telex room of the post office and punch out a story unsupervised. In Baghdad plate glass separated me from the telex machines. My copy was handed to an Iraqi on the other side of the window, and that was that. I could travel wherever I wanted to in Syria; in Iraq trying to would have landed me in prison. Going to Syria from Iraq was like coming up for air. Making a Syria out of an Iraq would be a minor human-rights miracle. "But appreciating this," notes Peter Bechtold, who runs the Middle East area-studies program at the Foreign Service Institute, "requires a frame of reference based on travel experience that not only most Americans lack, but so do people on the National Security Council."
...
"April Glaspie [the American ambassador to Iraq in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. CiJ] was much more protective of radical Arabs than our policy justified," says a bureaucratic rival at the State Department. With respect to Iraq, Glaspie advocated everything possible to make the Iraqis feel comfortable to avoid a disruption in relations. A Capitol Hill staff member adds, "Her meeting with Saddam Hussein was the culmination of a failed policy line that she and [NEA Assistant Secretary John] Kelly had been tirelessly advocating since 1988." This same person indicates that Dole and Simpson's apology for the VOA broadcasts calling for democracy in Iraq was the result of a prior briefing by Glaspie, which "conditioned the senators for the cave-in." A second source, who accompanied the senators on the trip, is of the same opinion: "I am a hundred percent sure that the apology was the result of Ambassador Glaspie's briefing."
...
April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein one week before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Glaspie saw Hussein without a notetaker, because she had been summoned to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry on short notice and did not know that she was about to meet the Iraqi President, with whom she had never had a private meeting during her two years in Baghdad. She wondered if this could be the beginning of an "opening," says a colleague of hers, and she obviously wanted the meeting to go well, especially as there was no time to get special instructions from Washington.
Glaspie told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at an open hearing that the Iraqi transcript of the meeting, which depicts her as acting in a fawning manner toward Saddam Hussein, and as appearing to indicate that the United States did not care how Iraq settled its border dispute with Kuwait, was doctored. But Senate staffers say that the Iraqi transcript and her own cable of the event "track almost perfectly." Glaspie, they and other observers conclude, was the ultimate staff person—obsessed with the diplomatic process to the point where she couldn't accept that sometimes it is better for the process to collapse than for it to continue.
Her performance turned out to be emblematic of the policy vacuum in Washington and of the pathetic political labors of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in the six years since relations had been re-established. Only after Iraq invaded Kuwait did Washington clearly enunciate its position, when George Bush and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, belatedly decided that Kuwait was something we cared about.
Glaspie told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "by staying [in Iraq] we could undertake diplomatic activity," such as extracting a promise from the Iraqis after the Kurds were gassed "that they wouldn't do it again." Listen again to McCreary: "In an awful country the smallest victory, no matter how inconsequential, gives you an incredibly big boost." These are not unlike the rationalizations of hostages, who try to occupy the endless stream of days with uplifting activity. Rather than appeasers, our Foreign Service officers in Baghdad—in the absence of responsible guidance from Washington—became hostages to a professional idealism that blinded them to the obvious: by the late 1980s having diplomatic relations with Iraq was not an achievement but a concession.
But maintaining relations is an entrenched habit of mind, and not just among Arabists. The State Department's attitude, according to Robert Keeley, is "We open embassies; we don't close them." In March of 1973, when Keeley sent a cable advising Washington to "seriously consider" closing its Uganda embassy, because of security problems arising from the iniquities of Idi Amin, the State Department sent out an inspector to see if Keeley had taken leave of his senses. Regarding Iraq, having recently upgraded the interests section in Baghdad to full embassy status, after a lapse of seventeen years, the idea of downgrading it to an interests section once again, in order to show displeasure over the extermination of the Kurds, ran counter to the Foggy Bottom mindset that Eagleton explains: "Once you downsize re-lations, it's hard to upgrade again without a pretext, so you can't pull out an ambassador every time you get mad."
Richard Parker, Eagleton's longtime friend and Arabist colleague, politely but strongly disagrees. "We certainly should have lowered relations in 1988. We shouldn't even have re-established them in 1984. All it did was help massage Saddam's ego." One of Glaspie's subordinates in Baghdad admits, "We had absolutely no influence."
Sustained only by vague hopes, the Americans in Iraq, like the British a half century before, were destined to watch in disbelief as another farhoud unleashed its fury. This time Kuwaitis, not Jews, paid the price.
There is one Jewish country. There are twenty-two Arab countries. State Department officers who want to get ahead in the US foreign service look for postings in the Arab world. Because of that, they have to learn to 'get along,' and that often means fawning over Arab culture. The result is 'realists' like Chas Freeman. They may have their place in the diplomatic corps, but when they are as single-minded as Freeman, they have no place being the final arbiters of intelligence materials that are being passed on to the President.
There's an op-ed in YNet entitled Obama doesn't get it, but it's really about how Tom Friedman - the world's most important journalist - doesn't get the 'Arab spring' and how Obama and the West are following him.
In February 2011, a few weeks after Egypt’s uprising erupted, when the Arab Spring was supposedly just around the corner and meant to bring us a new Middle East in the undying spirit of Shimon Peres, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times stood at Tahrir Square and delivered his own, no less immortal vision.
Friedman, whose name is mentioned by Israel’s finest colleagues without forgetting to note that he is “the world’s most important journalist,” examined the Cairo square with his sharp eyes, and found no hint of Islamic inspiration or influence, and certainly no Islamic forces behind the scenes patiently waiting for the reward that Tahrir’s “Facebook kids” will hand over to them.
What he did see using his incredibly developed journalist prowess was genuine de-colonization of Egypt, the rise of progressive democratic forces that will forever change Egypt’s dictatorial face, an Egyptian Pharaoh (Mubarak) removed from power with the vigorous encouragement of President Obama, and an Israeli Pharaoh (Netanyahu) who, being a lowly man, cannot grasp the significance of the regional change. So much for Thomas Friedman’s interpretation.
As we know, much water, and mostly blood, has flowed through the Middle East ever since then. In Tunisia, which was meant to pave the way for positive change, we saw the establishment of an Islamic Brotherhood-led government after the victory of the Ennahda party, which has made the sources of its authority clear to all.
Meanwhile, Libya of the post-Gaddafi lynch mostly makes sure that Gaza’s arms warehouses are well stocked. In Syria, they make sure to meet the daily massacre quota. In Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood and the Salafis are taking over parliament. The Brotherhood’s Mohammad Morsi is about to succeed the terrible Mubarak who slipped into a coma, while the Tahrir kids bemoan their “stolen revolution.”
Yet in New York, the “world’s most important journalist” still does nothing but write about the march of folly of those who, unlike him, have yet to recognize this great Mideastern era.
In a remarkable and enduring show of unity, non-Islamic
opposition parties under the banner of the National Salvation Front are
boycotting the regime until their demands – canceling the Islamic
constitution and setting up a consensus government until new elections
are held – are met.
The Muslim Brotherhood who had won a sweeping victory in the first free
parliamentary elections and got their candidate elected president have
bitterly disappointed the people who had put their faith in them.
Nothing has been done to improve their lot. Upon taking office Morsi had
promised – and failed – to take care of five burning issues within a
hundred days: growing insecurity, monster traffic jams in the capital,
lack of fuel and cooking gas, lack of subsidized bread, and the mounting
piles of refuse in the streets.
In The Pharoh weeps, Judith Miller cataloged some of the economic problems facing Egypt:
While Cairo may still be safer than Chicago, or even New
York, Egyptian women, for the first time in memory, fear shopping or
taking cabs at night. Cairo’s police, blamed for the deaths of
protestors and unhappy with their pay, working conditions, and lack of
respect, sit in their precinct houses, refusing to provide security that
Egyptians once took for granted. Tourists have vanished, depriving
Egypt of a vital source of jobs and hard currency. Unemployment has
risen from 9.8 percent in 2010 to 13 percent today. Inflation is
officially 8.7 percent, though more like 9.5 percent, or even higher,
for food and basic commodities, say economists. Even these figures are
misleading, since an estimated 40 percent of Egypt’s economy is “black”
or informal, unregulated by and unreported to the government, according
to Hazem el-Beblawi, an economist who served as deputy prime minister
under the army’s unpopular transition government in 2011. Beblawi, a
strong advocate of free-market liberalism who resigned his post that
year, accusing the army of taking Egypt in the “wrong direction,” says
youth unemployment probably tops 19 percent. Egypt, he estimates, has
less than its officially claimed $13.5 billion in hard-currency reserves
(versus $36 billion before the revolution). “Egypt imports roughly $60
billion worth of goods and services,” he says. “It exports under $25
billion.”
By summer, Beblawi predicts, the government will be unable to import the
wheat that sustains the poor—Egypt imports 10 million tons of wheat per
year, the most of any nation—or the diesel that fuels bread ovens and
transports 99 percent of everything that moves in this country of more
than 85 million. Egypt’s dilemma is this: it cannot politically afford
to stop providing the costly subsidies to the poor that distort its
economy. Poor Egyptians spend 70 percent of their income on food, versus
55 percent for Egyptians as a whole; Americans spend roughly 14
percent. But unless it reduces these subsidies and adopts a pro-growth
budget, Egypt cannot secure the $4.8 billion International Monetary Fund
loan it needs to unlock what Angus Blair, a Cairo-based former
investment banker and founder of Signet Institute, an economic think
tank, estimates could be $14 billion in aid and investment. Egypt spends
about 20 percent of its budget on fuel subsidies alone. In other words,
the government would be committing political suicide to do what
economists say must be done to sustain the country’s economic viability.
Only a government that enjoys public confidence can risk taking such
steps. “Egypt’s economic crisis has political roots,” Beblawi says. “And
a political solution is needed.” So far, he adds, none is in sight.
With their legendary “sabr,” or patience, nearly exhausted, Egyptians
blame the lack of growth, jobs, fuel, services, security, and stability
on what many call the “incompetence” of President Mohammed Morsi and his
ruling Muslim Brotherhood. And they blame the United States, too, for
supporting Morsi, who eked out an election victory last year and took
power last July thanks only to low voter turnout and a fractious,
divided secular opposition. “People no longer trust Morsi,” Beblawi
said, speaking for many among Cairo’s professional elite and middle
classes.
Clashes erupted immediately after the service between the
emerging mourners and a crowd outside the cathedral. It was unclear who
started the violence. But later dozens of riot police with armored
vehicles and tear-gas canons appeared to enter the fray on the side of
crowds of young Muslim men who were throwing rocks and fire bombs at the
mourners.
In what seemed like a siege of the cathedral, tear-gas canisters fell
inside the walls of its compound, sending gas into the sanctuary and two
nuns running for shelter in a nearby loading dock.
...
“The police are not trying to protect us or do anything to stop the
violence,” said Wael Eskandar, a Coptic Christian activist. “On the
contrary, they are actively aiding the people in civilian clothes”
attacking the Christians, he said.
It does no good to pretend, as some claim, that Morsi can’t
stop the attacks on Christians or that the forces pushing the country to
the brink of religious war are unrelated to the Brotherhood and its
supporters. While attacks on Christians were hardly unknown during the
long reign of deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak, it isn’t possible to
separate the heightened tension from the expectations of Islamists that
they have the Christian minority on the run. The brazen manner with
which these mobs have attacked a symbol of Christianity like the
Cathedral with the assistance of the police is a signal that things are
heading in the wrong direction. The spectacle of security forces with
armored personnel carriers and tear gas canons joining the violence on
the side of thugs throwing rocks and firebombs at Christian mourners
leaving the cathedral makes it hard to argue that this is the work of
extremists unconnected with the ruling party.
That Muslims who are prepared to riot and murder at the merest hint of
insult aimed at Islam taunted the Christians with what the Times called
“lewd gestures involving the cross” in the presence of the police is
itself appalling. But it is also indicative of a shift in the mood of
the Middle East, in which it is clear that anything goes when it comes
to religious conflict. Though the Brotherhood has promised gullible
Westerners that it won’t impose its beliefs on non-Muslims or turn the
country into a theocratic state, evidence is mounting that the
Kulturkampf in Egypt is in full swing.
If President Obama is serious about standing up for human rights, it is
necessary for him to speak out publicly against what is going on in
Egypt and to start using some of the leverage over its government that
he was quick to employ when showing Mubarak the door or threatening the
military to allow the Brotherhood to take office. If he fails to do so,
the Muslim and Arab world won’t be slow to draw the same conclusions
that Egyptians in the street are drawing from the role of the police in
the assault on the cathedral. They will think that Obama is indifferent
to the fate of the Copts or, even worse, that he has no problems with
the Brotherhood’s push for power.
Still, two things surprise me. The first is how incompetent
the Muslim Brotherhood has been. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has presided
over an economic death spiral and a judiciary caught up in idiocies like
investigating the comedian Bassem Youssef, Egypt’s Jon Stewart, for
allegedly insulting President Mohamed Morsi. (See Stewart’s perfect
takedown of Morsi.) Every time the Brotherhood had a choice of acting in
an inclusive way or seizing more power, it seized more power, depriving
it now of the broad base needed to make necessary but painful economic
reforms.
The second surprise? How weak the democratic opposition has been. The
tragedy of the Arab center-left is a complicated story, notes Marc
Lynch, a Middle East expert at George Washington University and the
author of “The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New
Middle East.” Many of the more secular, more pro-Western Egyptian
political elites who could lead new center-left parties, he said, had
been “co-opted by the old regime” for its own semiofficial parties and
therefore “were widely discredited in the eyes of the public.” That left
youngsters who had never organized a party, or a grab bag of
expatriates, former regime officials, Nasserites and liberal Islamists,
whose only shared idea was that the old regime must go.
And how would the Muslim Brotherhood have proven its "competence?"
Surely there's been incompetence in the way Morsi and company have
ruled, but to attribute their governing failure to "incompetence,"
ignores the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. What Friedman attributes
to incompetence masks his own ignorance. He assumed that the Muslim
Brotherhood was interested in governing, not in accruing power to
itself. In his analyses of Egypt over the past two years Friedman
ignored the totalitarian nature of Islamists. Sure, Friedman is correct
now to argue that the United States needs to use its leverage to effect
change in Egypt (or at least attempt to) but he's been a cheerleader for
the Muslim Brotherhood until recently. That is not due to his
expertise, but to his ignorance, something he refuses to own up to.
MT "@shadihamid: New #Egypt poll: 37% of Egyptians would vote for Morsi again; Sabahi 3%; Baradei 1%; Amr Moussa 1% bit.ly/Z3qmBg"
— Ikhwanweb (@Ikhwanweb) April 8, 2013
Brave, astonishing ToI op-ed on why Arab Spring failed, by ex-Iranian foreign ministry employee toi.sr/17qi8GW via @timesofisrael
— David Horovitz (@davidhorovitz) April 10, 2013
2)The Syria Debacle
Once upon a time, President Obama's top policy advisers recommended that he aid the Syria rebels. That time has long passed. While the Obama administration initially saw the Muslim Brotherhood as a bulwark against Al Qaeda, but that strategy hasn't been working out very well.
In an audio statement released online yesterday, Abu Bakr al
Baghdadi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), announced that his
organization shall henceforth be known as the “Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant.” The new name reflects AQI’s unchecked growth, primarily
into neighboring Syria, since the withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq.
Since late 2011, the Al Nusrah Front has greatly expanded its
operations. The organization has become one of the most effective
fighting forces in the war against Bashar al Assad’s crumbling regime.
Al Nusrah is better known in the West by its true name: al Qaeda.
That should put Washington in a diplomatic quandary. Qatari
and Turkish support for the Nusra Front is now effectively aiding an
al-Qaeda affiliate sworn not only to kill Bashar al-Assad but also
Americans. If Gulf analysts in Bahrain and Kuwait are to be believed,
Qatar is mucking about with such groups not simply out of religious
solidarity, but also because the emir of Qatar is high on the notion
that tiny Qatar can afford to muck about and be a player on the
international stage. Turkey would rather pump money to an al-Qaeda
affiliate than recognize the rights of Syrian Kurds who will not pay
fealty to Turkey’s leader, like the Democratic Union Party (PYD) which
now controls most Kurdish areas in Syria.
A no-fly zone, such as that Max Boot advocates,
would have once helped ordinary Syrians protect themselves against the
excesses of Bashar al-Assad’s rule. And it still may not be such a bad
idea, so long as it simply does not do the Nusra Front’s work for it.
Nor is simply funding the Syrian opposition wise since neither the State
Department nor Central Intelligence Agency is skilled at separating the
wheat from the chaff among Syrian opposition groups. Liberals will not
rise to the top in any safe-haven when faced with a group bent on their
repression at any cost. Whether we like it or not, any strategy for
Syria must now prioritize crushing the Nusra Front. Defeating Assad and
hoping for the best is not a strategy that will bolster U.S. interests.
And Barry Rubin reminds what weapons these rebels may well get access
to. (To be clear, Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood affiliated rebels
have these weapons; Al Qaeda affiliated groups don't appear to have
them, yet.)
Briefly, the story is this: The weapons are generically
known as MANPAD for Man Portable Air Defense Missile. The equipment
captured in Libya and from the Syrian army in Syria or obtained by other
means consists of four types.
The SA16 is a short-range version which has been captured by the rebels,
specifically when they took the giant Syrian army base in Aleppo.
The only weapon from Libya is the older SA7, since the Libyans didn’t
have more advanced versions. It has been reported –though all such
figures are not necessarily reliable — that about 5000 SA7 missiles were
destroyed by the U.S. and other forces but that about 15,000 remained
missing. The missiles are not usable forever, and some of those in the
Libyan arsenal were very old, but apparently many of them would still
work. Here’s an example of a reasonably reliable report saying that a
large number of SA7s were delivered to Syrian rebels through Turkey last
September.
Then there’s the Chinese FN-6 , standard for the Chinese air force,
which was used to shoot down a Syrian transport helicopter at Menagh Air
Base near Aleppo. How did that one get there, through the
U.S.-Turkish-Saudi-Qatari arms supply program or another way? It is
claimed that Syrian rebels shot down two military helicopters with this
weapon.
And this brings us to the best of all, the SA24. While some have been
misidentified, they were obtained from the 46th Syrian regiment base
west of Aleppo.
For all the hope the Arab Spring originally engendered, it is increasingly looking like a disaster for American interests.
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
I suppose this was inevitable.
