Mideast Media Sampler 05/08/2011

From an email from DG

1) I can get it for you wholesale

Before I start, I'd like to review the past few decades of Middle East peacemaking.
 In 1979, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords ending the state of war between Israel and Egypt.

In doing so, Israel removed its most significant enemy from the battlefield. But Israel gave up a lot. It returned the Sinai desert, which it had captured in 1967. Reportedly Begin had attempted to return Gaza to Egypt, but Sadat refused.


While Israel was no longer threatened by Egypt, Egypt hasn't been the most friendly non-belligerent state. In 1996 it held a military exercise codenamed Badr 1996, which simulated a war with Israel. Egypt hasn't been great about preventing arms from reaching Hamas in Gaza. Aside from non-belligerence, Egypt has changed little towards Israel. Egypt never promoted cultural changes and has been one of the world foremost producers of antisemitic literature.

In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords. The PLO promised to forsake terror and engage in political negotiations and Israel promised to cede territory in exchange for peace. In the subsequent 17 1/2 years, Arafat encouraged terror against Israel, or, at best didn't fight it. Arafat violated many of the terms of the Oslo Accords, including one prohibiting incitement against Israel and one requiring him to abrogate sections of the Palestinian Charter which called for the destruction of Israel. (The Palestinians held two sessions of its legislature purportedly to repudiate the old charter. Since there's no new charter and elements of the old charter - such as the denial of the historical ties between Jews and Israel - still are common talking points for Palestinian officials, it may be assumed that the original charter remains in force.) Israel in accord with its agreements has provided money, arms, territory and legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority.

Though Israel's eastern neighbor with Jordan had largely maintained non-belligerence for decades, the two countries signed a peace treaty in 1994.

Israel has provided water to Jordan as a result of the treaty.

If you read Thomas Friedman's latest drivel End of Mideast Wholesale, you would think that Israel has done little to advance the cause of peace in its neighborhood and has received bountiful returns in exchange.

Moussa owes a great deal of his popularity in Egypt to his tough approach to Israel. I hope he has a broader vision. It is noteworthy that in the decade he led the Arab League, he spent a great deal of time jousting with Israel and did virtually nothing to either highlight or deal with the conclusions of the 2002 U.N. Arab Human Development Report — produced by a group of Arab scholars led by an Egyptian — that said the Arab people are suffering from three huge deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and deficit of women’s empowerment.

The current Israeli government, however, shows little sign of being prepared for peace retail. I can’t say with any certainty that Israel has a Palestinian partner for a secure peace so that Israel can end its occupation of the West Bank. But I can say with 100 percent certainty that Israel has a huge interest in going out of its way to test that possibility. The Arab world is going through a tumultuous transition to a still uncertain destination. Israel needs to do all it can to get out of their story, because it is going to be a wild ride.

It is interesting that when Friedman was in Tahrir Square he never reported on the antisemitic posters
that John Rosenthal found in public searches.

But what can I make of Friedman's argument? In order to get peace with Egypt, Israel needs to make peace with the Palestinians? That isn't paying retail instead of wholesale, that's paying twice for the same item.
And notice Friedman doesn't even condemn Amr Moussa, he just regrets that he lacks "a broader vision." But the current Israeli government isn't much interested in peace according to Friedman.

Have no illusions: The main goal of the rejectionists today is to lock Israel into the West Bank — so the world would denounce it as some kind of Jewish apartheid state, with a Jewish minority permanently ruling a Palestinian majority, when you combine Israel’s Arabs and the West Bank Arabs. With a more democratic Arab world, where everyone can vote, that would be a disaster for Israel. It may be unavoidable, but it would be insane for Israel to make it so by failing to aggressively pursue a secure withdrawal option.

Since 1993 Israel has given up control over some 98% of the Palestinians. To argue at this point that Israel is still denying rights to the Palestinians is mistaken. But worse, Friedman is giving the Arab world its rhetorical ammunition: "Israel is an apartheid state" well after the argument had expired. With folks like Friedman, the Arab world gets plenty of support against Israel.

After reading Friedman, one wouldn't realize that it was the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008 who refused final agreements with Israel. And given what's happened since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005 that Israel has a "secure withdrawal option."

Finally, to insist that democracy in the Arab world would be bad for Israel, is insulting. In free and open societies the antisemitism that is promulgated in the Arab world and excused by Friedman, would likely dissipate.

After spending the majority op-ed demonstrating his willful historical ignorance by bashing Israel, Friedman then turns towards others who will now have to "pay more" for what it wants.

The second group that will have to pay retail for stability is the Arab monarchies — Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Morocco. These governments have for decades bought stability with reform wholesale — by offering faux reforms, like reshuffling cabinets, that never amounted to real power sharing — and by distracting their people with shiny objects. But these monarchies totally underestimate the depth of what has erupted in their region: a profound quest for personal dignity, justice and freedom that is not going away. They will have to share more power.

Maybe there's a real yearning for freedom, maybe not. But there's one element that Friedman doesn't mention: antisemitism.

Finally Friedman writes:

Therefore, to get its votes, all the Muslim Brotherhood had to say was that “Mubarak is a Zionist” and “Islam is the answer.” It didn’t have to think hard about jobs, economics or globalization. It got its support wholesale — by simply being the only authentic vehicle for protest against the regime. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is going to have to get its votes retail — I hope.

In the end Friedman doesn't seem to argue that ruling will moderate the Islamists, rather he hopes that the reformers will get organized. I suppose that's an improvement over his Israel bashing. But it's too little and too late in his op-ed to distract from his dishonesty and what can only be described as hatred towards Israel.

Elder of Ziyon has more.

Technorati Tag: Middle East