Mideast Media Sampler 04/06/2011

From an email from DG:

1) Btselem

After the Goldstone report was issued Btselem released a statement that read in part:

Israel's response was to immediately condemn the report as erroneous, tendentious, and biased. B'Tselem rejected these claims, and stated in many forums that the report was the result of a serious, professional investigation, reflecting a deep and genuine commitment to ensure that justice is done.

B'Tselem indeed criticized some of the report's findings. Among other things, B'Tselem argued that the criticism of the way that Hamas members chose to fight did not reflect the severity of their acts, and that in some of the cases the threshold of proof demanded by the mission for determining that Hamas violated international humanitarian law was a higher threshold than that applied to Israel. Also, the mission's conclusions regarding Israel's overall objectives in carrying out the operation were not sufficiently supported by facts arising from the mission's research. However, B'Tselem declared that these faults do not nullify the report's main recommendation, that Israel must investigate the suspicions that its army acted in Gaza unlawfully and immorally. The suspicions go beyond the acts of individual soldiers, and center on questions of policy relating to rules of engagement, selection of targets for bombing, and the degree to which civilians were protected, among other issues.

Well even if Judge Goldstone won't work to see that his report is rescinded, Israel's response now seems to have been in order. The difference between B'tselem's response and Israel's is that B'tselem acknowledges the problems of the Goldstone investigation but considers them unimportant. As Jessica Montell writes in today's Washington Post:

Where did that leave me? B’Tselem, the organization I lead, had extensively documented Operation Cast Lead and was pushing hard for domestic accountability. So we worked to leverage what was positive about the Goldstone Report — particularly the central recommendation that both Israel and Hamas must investigate the grave allegations and hold accountable anyone found responsible for violating the laws of war. But it was impossible to ignore some glaring problems with the report, particularly the conclusions regarding Israel’s intention to harm Palestinian civilians and what appeared to be different standards to prove Israel’s crimes and those of Hamas.

Israel looked at the different standards of proof and saw that the report was fundamentally flawed. But that's greatly understating the case. The report barely even mentioned Hamas, so saying that it held Israel to stricter standards of proof is misleading. The report barely investigated Hamas. Given that Hamas was only condemned in the most general of terms, it's clear, not just from the composition of the Goldstone Commission, that the report was meant only to judge and condemn Israel. But that didn't disqualify it in the eyes of B'tselem.

I also note a recent press release from B'tselem.

On 22 March '11, the Israeli military fired "Keshet" mortar shells at the Shaja'iya neighborhood east of Gaza City. The shells killed four Palestinian civilians, three of them from the same family, including two children. The media reported that the firing was a response to Palestinian firing at southern Israel a short time earlier. 

But it was more specific than that. According to the New York Times Israel was firing at the same position where the mortars had been fired at Israel from. B'tselem couldn't even bring itself to condemn the terrorists for firing at Israeli civilians from inside of a civilian area. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that B'tselem doesn't want Israel to defend itself. 

Today's op-ed too, makes no mention that Cast Lead was launched in response to years of rocket and mortar fire. It's as if Israel simply decided to attack Gaza arbitrarily.

Once again I bring you yesterday's conclusion from Richard Cohen:

As Goldstone acknowledges, Israel has looked into every charge of war crimes — incident by incident. Some soldiers have indeed been punished because some awful things happened. But overall, Israel adheres to a morality we all recognize and admire — and that its enemies, Hamas in particular, do not. Those who gleefully embraced the Goldstone report have to ask themselves why. They may hate the answer.

Cohen's arguing that those who can't differentiate between Israel and Hamas have lost their moral compass. Jessica Montell demonstrates that her organization suffers from that problem.

2) Bernard Lewis

Over the weekend the great historian Bernard Lewis was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. His responses included:

"I think that the tyrannies are doomed," Mr. Lewis says as we sit by the windows in his library, teeming with thousands of books in the dozen or so languages he's mastered. "The real question is what will come instead." 

For Americans who have watched protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Bahrain and now Syria stand up against their regimes, it has been difficult not to be intoxicated by this revolutionary moment. Mr. Lewis is "delighted" by the popular movements and believes that the U.S. should do all it can to bolster them. But he cautions strongly against insisting on Western-style elections in Muslim lands. 

"We have a much better chance of establishing—I hesitate to use the word democracy—but some sort of open, tolerant society, if it's done within their systems, according to their traditions. Why should we expect them to adopt a Western system? And why should we expect it to work?" he asks.

3) More Miller peace processing

Some time ago Aaron David Miller wrote an article acknowledging the futility of peace processing. But according to a recent op-ed  in the IHT he is offering a way How to Break the Mideast Deadlock

Here’s my proposal: Put an American president in the middle of the mix, Arab leaders in the Knesset, and millions of dollars into the new Palestinian state. Specifically: 

First, the U.S. president must decide and declare that nothing is more important to him and U.S. national interests than an Israeli-Palestinian peace. If he’s not prepared to say this and mean it, forget the rest. 

Second, the president should identify key American principles on core issues — not bridging proposals. Nobody gets 100 percent on the big issues, but they each must be get close enough on all the issues. On refugees and security, the president would have to be especially sensitive to Israeli needs; on Jerusalem and borders, to the Palestinians. 

Third, the president, accompanied by as many Arab foreign ministers as he could muster (heads of state would be better; but we’re missing a few now), would travel to Israel and Palestine where he would address the Israeli and Palestinian Parliaments. Flanked by the Arab leaders he would lay out the principles on which an agreement should be based, and declare that the agreement would lead to recognition of Israel by the Arab world and recognition of Palestine with substantial financial and technological support for the new Palestinian state.  

The message to both sides: We’re serious — are you? 

If the president says the first thing prescribed by Miller, the Palestinians (and Arabs generally) will raise the price of peace. Israel is a democracy; its government subject to public pressure. If the government is perceived as not doing enough for peace it will fall. Fayyad and Abbas have no such weakness. (To the contrary, the culture they foster is one where defying the United States will increase their popularity.) Effectively this is a recipe for putting pressure on Israel, not for achieving peace.

I should point out that the basic outlines of this proposal have been offered by Israel twice and rejected by the Palestinians twice. Why would the Palestinians accept it now? And why should the Palestinians be rewarded for their past intransigence?

And I love that last line. He still remembers the line Thomas Friedman fed to James Baker.

He added, "Everybody over there should know that the telephone number ((of the White House)) is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."

The Israeli public, for now, is somewhat more skeptical about the chances for peace at the current time.

The March 2011 Peace Index survey found that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews (70%) believe that with the Middle Eastern upheavals, the situation at the moment is unclear and therefore it is better for Israel not to take any initiatives at this time. 

Only 28% believe Israel should make a new effort to reach a regional peace at this time.

Given that one of the candidates to rule Egypt has recently made war with Israel part of his platform because it will help his electoral chances, the Israeli public's prudence is well advised. 

That's especially true because, as Miller notes, Arab heads of state are currently in short supply. Furthermore, chances are that any who "guarantee" peace with Israel may not be around very long to keep his commitment. So the idea of making tangible concessions at this time is not a good one.

4) Maybe I spoke too soon

Yesterday I expressed skepticism at Salam Fayyad's promise to bring the murderers of Juliano Mer-Khamis to justice. One suspect has been arrestedin the murder.

Palestinian security forces arrested on Tuesday a suspect in the killing of Israeli actor Juliano Mer-Khamis in Jenin on Monday.  

According to a security official, Palestinian police have been probing the man - a former al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades militant who was released from Israeli prison more than five years ago - but he has yet to confess to the murder. 

Mer-Khamis was attacked by more than one assailant. The question remains if anyone else will be arrested.

Technorati Tag: Middle East.