Mideast Media Sampler 06/19/2011

From DG:

1) Turnip truck Tom

Before I critique Thomas Friedman's latest in which he advocates squeezing Israel and giving the Palestinians all they want, I'd like to review a recent theme that Friedman has been obsessed with.

At the beginning of June, Friedman was on CNBC's Squawk Box and said:

FRIEDMAN: "The worst thing in the world would be if Israel permanently controls the West Bank and basically because of demographics in a very short time, you'll have a Jewish minority ruling over an Arab majority. 

CNBC: It's apartheid. 

FRIEDMAN: That's what it will be called in the world. And that would be what we call on college campuses and all over the world. That is a fundamental threat to the Israel. I didn't fall off a turnip truck last night. I get the region. Okay?

This a theme he's mentioned in three recent columns.


Lessons from Tahrir Square:

It may be that Israeli and Palestinian leaders are incapable of surprising anyone anymore, in which case the logic on the ground will prevail: Israel will gradually absorb the whole West Bank, so, together with Israel proper, a Jewish minority will be ruling over an Arab majority. Israel’s enemies will refer to it as “the Jewish apartheid state.” America, Israel’s only true friend, will find itself having to defend an Israel whose policies it does not believe in and whose leaders it does not respect — and the tensions between the U.S. and Israel displayed in Washington last week will seem quaint by comparison. 

Bibi and Barack:

But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel’s future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs — between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world — Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.

End of Mideast Wholesale:

Alas, though, the main strategy of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas will be to drag Israel into the Arab story — as a way of deflecting attention away from how these anti-democratic regimes are repressing their own people and to further delegitimize Israel, by making sure it remains a permanent occupier of Palestinians in the West Bank. 

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. 

This is what he writes in today's column, What to do with lemons:

The Obama team is in a fix. The Palestinian Authority, having lost faith in both Israel and the U.S., is pushing for the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state, within the 1967 lines in the West Bank and Gaza. Once that is in hand, the Palestinian Authority could then start a global push to pressure Israel into withdrawing its settlers and security forces, or face sanctions and delegitimization. Israel is obviously opposed to this move. The U.S. has no desire to support such a one-sided resolution, which would alienate Israel and American Jews. But it also has no desire to veto such a resolution, which would only complicate America’s standing in the Arab-Muslim world. 

No he doesn't use "apartheid" but that what he means when he writes "delegitimization."

The first thing to keep in mind is this. Friedman, is claiming to help Israel, because without doing anything Israel will become a pariah state. Apparently Friedman believes that as long as there's no Palestinian state Israel is "ruling over" Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Of course, the last hasn't been true since 2005. And in Judea and Samaria the vast majority of Palestinians are not under Israeli rule. So his supposed concern for Israel is more than offset by his ignorant premise.

Friedman's premise is also troubling from a different standpoint. Israel's legitimacy, according to Friedman is dependent upon Palestinian approval. What if Israel agrees to terms with the Palestinians and then the Palestinians change their minds? To Friedman, Israel's still illegitimate. Related to this moral inversion is that he excuses the partnership of Fatah and Hamas. Israel must negotiate with the joint government to save its legitimacy. So Fatah, which had based its own legitimacy on the (phony) rejection of terror, doesn't pay a price for rejecting a fundamental premise of the peace process.

(There's a lot more to question about Friedman here. I'm not so certain that there's a train wreck coming in September. This of course is the view of Ha'aretz. But Khaled Abu Toameh reports that the Palestinians are looking for a way to back down from their promised confrontation at the UN. I trust Khaled Abu Toameh much more than I trust Thomas Friedman, the former actually knows what he's writing about.)

Aside from the troubling premise from with Friedman proceeds, there's a particularly disturbing suggestion he makes:

On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. passed General Assembly Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine into two homes for two peoples — described as “Independent Arab and Jewish States.” This is important. That is exactly how Resolution 181 described the desired outcome of partition: an “Arab” state next to a “Jewish” state. 

So why don’t we just update Resolution 181 and take it through the more prestigious Security Council? It could be a simple new U.N. resolution: “This body reaffirms that the area of historic Palestine should be divided into two homes for two peoples — a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The dividing line should be based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed border adjustments and security arrangements for both sides. This body recognizes the Palestinian state as a member of the General Assembly and urges both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve all the other outstanding issues.” Very simple. 

Each side would get something vital provided it gives the other what it wants. The Palestinians would gain recognition of statehood and U.N. membership, within provisional boundaries, with Israel and America voting in favor. And the Israelis would get formal U.N. recognition as a Jewish state — with the Palestinians and Arabs voting in favor. 

It's hard to see what Israel gets out of this. After all Israel has been demanding that the Palesitnians recognize Israel as a Jewish state; something the Palestinians still refuse to do. (Abbas likes to play word games.) Having the UN Security Council won't accomplish that.

For the past decades we've been told that Israel needed to make peace based on resolution 242, now Friedman's telling us that the problem wasn't the Six Day War but Israel's founding. Friedman, now twelve years late, is adopting Arafat's tactic. In June 1999, Charles Krauthammer wrote:

After years of persistence, Netanyahu manages to get most of the not-an-inch "nationalist" half of Israel to accept the 242/338 formula. What happens? For the last six months Arafat has been going around the world demanding instead implementation of UN Resolution 181.

What is that? An obsolete, defunct resolution passed by the General Assembly (unlike 242 and 338, not by the Security Council, and thus not even binding) . . . in 1947! It partitioned British Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. At the time, every single Arab state and the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee totally rejected 181. In fact, they invaded the area given to the Jews with the express purpose of wiping it off the map.

They failed. And now 50 years later, the Palestinians are converts to 181.

What's wrong with that? In the course of that '48-'49 war, Israel fought back. The armistice lines of 1949 ending it created the current internationally recognized (pre-'67) Israel--an area larger than that outlined in 181. Hence Arafat's 181 ploy. Under 181, Israel would have to give up not just the '67 conquests (all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza) but large chunks of pre-'67 Israel proper in the Galilee and the Negev. Indeed, 181 would take not only East Jerusalem away from Israel, but West Jerusalem--entirely Jewish and always under Israeli control--as well.

Before the Israeli elections, says Ehud Ya'ari (Middle East correspondent for Israel Television and an associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy), the Palestinians were preparing to go to the UN General Assembly to demand an explanation from Israel "on the measures it took illegally to extend its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied . . . beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish state in resolution 181."

Yasser Arafat isn't dead; he's been reincarnated as Thomas Friedman.

It isn't Israel that is illegitimate, it is Thomas Friedman declaring that is.

To quote Barry Rubin:

So a big part of Israel’s difficulty is that people like Friedman are perpetuating anti-Israel lies instead of attacking them. 

Not only lies; tactics too.


2) History not narrative

The Daily Alert blog excerpted a Shlomo Avineiri article from Ha'aretz, The truth should be taught about the 1948 war

Why is this important? In recent debates about the Palestinian "Nakba," the claim has been made that there are two "narratives," an Israeli one and a Palestinian one, and we should pay attention to both of them. That, of course, is true: Alongside the Israeli-Zionist claims regarding the Jewish people's connection to its historic homeland and the Jews' miserable situation, there are Palestinian claims that regard the Jews as a religious group only and Zionism as an imperialist movement. 

But above and beyond these claims is the simple fact - and it is a fact, not a "narrative" - that in 1947, the Zionist movement accepted the United Nations partition plan, whereas the Arab side rejected it and went to war against it. A decision to go to war has consequences, just as it did in 1939 or 1941. 

The importance of this distinction becomes clear upon perusing the op-ed that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently published in The New York Times. Abbas mentioned the partition decision in his article, but said not one single word about the facts - who accepted it and who rejected it. He merely wrote that "Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs." 

This is essential reading for ignorant columnists.


3) Rules of the Narrative 

Do you wish to know the Rules and Guidelines for Westerners reporting on the Middle East (h/t Daphe Anson)

They include:

If Israelis are killed in a terrorist attack, then treat this as an opportunity to take a vacation from reporting.

However, you should immediately return from your vacation if it is discovered that an Israeli family in Jerusalem is planning to build an extra bedroom to accommodate their new baby. In that case you should write a story with the headline

Israelis destroy chance of peace by announcing new West Bank settlement plans. 

At the end of the article you can use the following statement:

An Israeli government spokesman claimed that the settlement plans were in response to what they claimed was a ‘terrorist attack’. 

Which, you might recall, is roughly what the New York Times did right after the Fogel murders.

I would term this satire wickedly funny.

Technorati Tag: Tom Friedman and Middle East and Israel.