Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Mideast Media Sampler 06/15/2011 (UPDATES: Items 5 & 6)

Updates: items 5 & 6 added below

From DG
1) That's what friends are for

Terror supporter, Helena Cobban is currently in Egypt and she interviewed Esam al-Erian one of the leaders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. At the end of her interview she cites el-Erian:
"So please don't intervene in ways that corrupt our new politicians. Westerners corrupted so many of our local NGO's and even human-rights organizations in the past. (But I want to note that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did a great job! They are my friends!)"
Perhaps this is just flattery as Cobban used to be on HRW's board for the Middle East. Or perhaps these two venerable human rights organizations really are an Islamists best friend.


2) Chess nut

Charles Krauthammer is a chess enthusiast and has written about a number of brutal dictators have been chess players. We can add one tyrant to the list: Moammar Qaddafi.

The chess encounter in Tripoli between Moammar Kadafi and the president of the World Chess Federation has caused a stir in both the Russian and Libyan news media.

Libyan state television on Monday was showing over and over Monday the odd scene of Kadafi squaring off a day earlier against Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, the international chess czar from Russia.
Ilyumzhinov claims to have been abducted by aliens.


3) Yes, sectarian strife, that's the problem

A really disturbing article in the New York Times reports:

“The sectarian aspect, the divisions and the animosity are getting worse,” said an Obama administration official in Washington, speaking on the condition of anonymity. 
What's disturbing is that this article is the first sentence in the paragraph:

The prospect alarms outsiders as well, and has been one reason that the United States and Arab neighbors have as a whole been reluctant to push out President Assad. 
We're talking about Syria and the article seems most concerned about sectarian divisions! Worse as Michael Young tweeted yesterday:

Having trouble grasping that an unidentified US official has bought the official Syrian line on Jisr al-Shoughour! 

The title really says it all, Syrian Unrest Stirs New Fear of Deeper Sectarian Divide.

This report, Fleeing Syrians Take Refuge Along Border With Turkey is a little better and it's also from the Times

The scenes on both sides of the border, a 520-mile frontier that Syrians can cross without visas, brought yet another dimension to the three-month rebellion against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The repressive force of the state unfolded Tuesday, with the military expanding its deployment to restive regions in the north and east and security forces making more arrests, along with the consequences of thousands of lives uprooted. 
Compare with Iraq:

Iraqi security forces assisted by U.S. troops ended a deadly three-hour siege of a provincial council headquarters north of Baghdad on Tuesday after shooting the last surviving assailant before he could detonate a suicide belt.
What Iraq's long term prognosis is, is unsure, but for now it is functioning as a country should with its government protecting its citizens, unlike Syria.


4) Cohen on Turki

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote From a Saudi prince, tough talk on America’s favoritism toward Israel.

The subject is Prince Turki's vitriolic, recent op-ed in the Washington Post. While describing Turki as a bitter, humorless man, Cohen still seems sympathetic to Turki's arguments.

He is also angry as hell, and he lets America have it. He starts by citing what he calls President Obama’s “controversial speech last month, admonishing Arab governments to embrace democracy and provide freedom to their populations.” Saudi Arabia, he wrote, heard what Obama said and took it “seriously,” and he noted, of course, that Obama had not demanded the same rights for Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Point taken.
Point taken?

Fortunately there's the next paragraph:

But the same kingdom that has taken Obama “seriously” is an absolute monarchy that, among other things, bans women from driving cars. It is also a country that offers no freedom of religion but offers, for the occasional criminal, a public beheading. Given that Turki has spent a good deal of time in the West, it’s not possible that he was unaware that commentators like me would be picky about the lack of basic freedoms. He doesn’t care.
And since we're talking about occupation, why not mention Saudi meddling in Bahrain's affairs? 

A few paragraphs later Cohen effectively gives his endorsement of Turki's argument:

This is not your usual diplomatic language — and even for Turki it is rough. It shows, though, a not-surprising frustration in the Arab world with American policy tethered for the moment to a quite stubborn and unimaginative Israeli policy. Both countries are suffering from a surfeit of democracy. Israel’s governing coalition is held hostage by the right; America’s governing coalition is in the same fix. 
"[H]eld hostage by the right?" Really? Netanyahu established a center-right coalition representing an impressive spectrum of Israel's electorate; how is that "held hostage by the right?" And why can't Cohen bring himself to note that it's been Abbas who has mostly refused to negotiate since Netanyahu was elected. Abbas has been strengthened by diplomats, politicians and pundits who refuse to assign blame to him for his obstinacy. Actually it is Abbas who (if he really is moderate) who is held hostage by the right. Moderation is something that is neither encouraged nor rewarded in the Palestinian Authority.
UPDATES:


5) The evidence

Reporting about the "Nakba" protests last month, Ethan Bronner wrote in the New York Times:

In the Golan Heights, about 100 Palestinians living in Syria breached a border fence and crowded into the village of Majdal Shams, waving Palestinian flags. Troops fired on the crowd, killing four people. The border unrest could represent a new phase in the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. 
and later in the article
The chief Israeli military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, said on Israel Radio that he saw Iran’s fingerprints in the coordinated confrontations, although he offered no evidence. Syria has a close alliance with Iran, as does Hezbollah, which controls southern Lebanon, and Hamas, which rules in Gaza. 
Yoni Ben-Menachem, Israel Radio’s chief Arab affairs analyst, said it seemed likely that President Assad of Syria was seeking to divert attention from his crackdown on the popular uprisings there by allowing confrontations in the Golan Heights for the first time in decades. 
“This way Syria makes its contribution to the Nakba Day cause, and Assad wins points by deflecting the media’s attention from what is happening inside Syria,” he added. 
There were also signs of grass-roots support for the protests. 

Joel Greenberg of the Washington Post reported at the time:
But soldiers in the Israeli-held Golan Heights were caught unprepared when hundreds of Palestinian protesters from Syria breached a border fence and then tore it down, pelting soldiers with rocks before they were driven back by gunfire, which killed at least two people.
The White House accused the Syrian government of inciting the violence to divert attention from the demonstrations against the Syrian regime. “Such behavior is unacceptable,” press secretary Jay Carney said.
The focus of Greenberg's report was the unpreparedness of the army in confronting the protesters.

But now Michael Weiss has produced a document showing (Syrian) governmental orchestration of the protesters from Syria.

I can't find references to this document in either the Washington Post or the New York Times. The latter was scrupulous to mention that an Israeli general offered no proof of his charges; shouldn't documentary evidence be scrutinized at the very least? Maybe the editors at both papers are skeptical about the document, but not mentioning it shows a shameful lack of curiosity.


6) Coalition follies

I love this title: In Lebanon, New Cabinet Is Influenced by Hezbollah

"Influenced" would seem to be an understatement. In actuality, the reporting isn't as bad:

Lebanon’s new prime minister, Najib Mikati, announced on Monday a long-delayed government dominated by members and allies of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, a move likely to alarm Western powers. 
Mr. Mikati was appointed in January after Hezbollah and its allies toppled the Western-backed government of Saad Hariri in a dispute over the investigation of the killing of Mr. Hariri’s father, Rafik, a billionaire and former prime minister. 
Five months passed between Mr. Mikati’s appointment and Monday’s announcement, a protracted dispute that many Lebanese saw as emblematic of the country’s political dysfunction. While bickering over posts in the cabinet and their distribution among sects and political powers was the ostensible reason for the delay, the arguments underlined a country deeply divided over questions of ideology, the power of foreign patrons and which community would hold sway over Lebanon’s political landscape. 
Of course the dysfunction reported here is the result of foreign domination of Lebanon. If Israel were one of the "foreign patrons" involved, the reporter wouldn't be so indirect.

And Hamas and Fatah can't agree on a candidate for Prime Minister:
Hamas has rejected Fatah’s nominee, Salam Fayyad, the current prime minister of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, who has strong Western backing and the confidence of foreign donor states. Hamas officials have accused Fayyad of serving U.S. interests and cooperating with Israel in a crackdown on the militant Islamist group in the West Bank. 
No word yet if the Obama administration will pressure Abbas to reject the unity agreement with Hamas as an obstacle to peace.


Technorati Tag: .

No comments: