Mideast Media Sampler 07/13/2011

From DG:

1) Turnip Truck Thomas Friedman's Reading list

Google has put together "bundles" of "power readers." If you use Google Reader you can view these bundles. One of Google's power readers is Thomas Friedman. This is his bundle. Unsurprisingly it includes the front page of the New York Times. He also subscribes to the two leftwing celebrity sites, Huffington Post and the Daily Beast. His Israeli news comes from Ha'aretz. The only two sites that might provide diversity of views for Friedman are RealClearPolitics and Foreign Policy. Just about everything else is in line with his very left wing politics. (At least three of the sites are "green" sites, which, as anyone aware of Friedman's lifestyle knows, is a major concern of his.)
 

2) Where's the outrage?

The attack on America's embassy in Damascus is one of the more blatant displays of contempt for the United States that I can think of. Yet, of the three papers I cover, only the Wall Street Journal had an editorial on it yesterday. (The day after it happened.) In Assad's embassy Raid the editors of the WSJ wrote:

Syria's "reformer" responded in character, allowing pro-Assad demonstrators to besiege the U.S. and French embassies. Over the past three days, mobs have breached the walls of the U.S. compound, written anti-American graffiti and hurled rocks and tomatoes. They also attacked Mr. Ford's residence. The clear intent was to intimidate Mr. Ford and to suggest that Americans and French are at personal risk if their governments identify too vocally with the opposition.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday condemned the attacks, saying that Mr. Assad "has lost legitimacy." State demanded compensation for damages. The Administration needs to make clear to the Assad regime that the U.S. won't stand for such assaults on its national property and diplomats. A firm U.S. response is crucial lest Syria's leaders conclude they can influence American policy with such intimidation.

Today the Washington Post's editors weigh in with The U.S. has gotten tough with Syria; now it needs to get tougher

Some Syrians may wonder why an ugly but non-lethal incursion on Western diplomatic property got a reaction that the slaughter of some 1,500 people with tanks and helicopter gunships failed to elicit. But we hope they will also remember the superb diplomacy of U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford, who, like his French counterpart, traveled last week to the city of Hama, which has been taken over by the opposition. Mr. Assad’s tanks ring the city, and many residents fear a murderous assault. The American ambassador’s presence may have forestalled such an attack; it also allowed Mr. Ford to observe and report that, contrary to the regime’s propaganda, the Hama protesters were unarmed and have not attacked government buildings or officials.

Mr. Ford’s mission was a demonstration that — despite what is frequently heard from administration officials in Washington — it is possible for the United States to help Syrians free themselves from the Assad dictatorship. Declaring Mr. Assad “illegitimate” is an important signal; it would have still more impact if President Obama, who has spoken publicly on Syria only twice in four months, were to give Mr. Assad the same rhetorical shove he delivered to Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi.

Two days after the incident the editors of the New York Times remain silent on this outrage.

On March 9, 2010, the New York Times reported As Biden Visits, Israel Unveils Plan for New Settlements

Hours after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. vowed unyielding American support forIsrael’s security here on Tuesday, Israel’s Interior Ministry announced 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem. Mr. Biden condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.” 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was clearly embarrassed at the move by his interior minister, Eli Yishai, leader of the right-wing Shas Party, who has made Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem one of his central causes. 

On March 10, the New York Times opined in Diplomacy 102:

Aides say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was blindsided by the announcement from Israel’s Interior Ministry, led by the leader of right-wing Shas Party. But he didn’t disavow the plan. And it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington.

When there was a perceived diplomatic "slap in the face" the editors of the Times were quick to criticize Israel. But when agents of the Syrian regime actually attacked an American diplomatic institution, they have taken their time to get outraged.


3) Eliciting support or giving a gift?

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:

Iraq has quietly started negotiations to buy U.S. fighter jets and air-defense systems worth billions of dollars, a purchase Washington hopes will help counter Iranian influences and cement long-term ties with Baghdad after American troops pull out. 

Will selling the jets have the effect countering Iranian influence?

The other day, the Washington Post reported:

On June 30, the Danish shipping giant Maersk startled Iran’s trade officials by abruptly pulling out of the country’s three largest ports. Company officials said little about the decision, but the timing was striking: A week earlier, the Obama administration haddeclared the ports’ operator to be an arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, a group linked to terrorism and weapons trafficking.

Other shipping companies followed suit, and soon Iran was scrambling to find alternative ways to import food and other critical supplies. Now Iranian officials are warning of economic pain in the months ahead — precisely the effect that U.S. officials were hoping for.

But a few days ago, Iran and Iraq agreed to increase their trade with each other.

Iran and Iraq have agreed to increase the value of their bilateral trade to $20 billion in the near future. 

“We agree to increase the value of mutual economic and trade exchange, which is expected to reach 10 billion dollars by the end of the current year, to 20 billion dollars in the near future,” Iran's First Vice-President Mohammadreza Rahimi told reporters in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, on Thursday, IRNA reported.

Rahimi arrived in the Iraqi capital on Wednesday for a two-day official visit. 

So even as sanctions are starting to hurt Iran; Iran increases its trade ties with Iraq, presumably offsetting some of the effects of the boycott. It appears that Iraq wants the American jets, but not necessarily American influence.

4) Who needs a lesson?

Babylon and Beyond featured an item A welcome to South Sudan ... and maybe a lesson at home

Israel should learn the lessons of Sudan, advised a Sunday editorial in the Haaretz daily , noting that the United Nations, in a rare instance, has proved its ability to resolve bloody conflicts and was the critical factor in the Sudanese matter. "While Israel is fighting a harsh and needless battle against U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state, it should look to Sudan and draw the conclusion that a diplomatic plan that wins the support of the United Nations and most of the world could be the best plan for Israel, too," the column advised.

The lesson hasn't been lost on the Palestinian leadership, which appears to be continuing its bid to appeal to the U.N. for recognition in September, despite Israel's diplomatic counter-campaign (and its belief that the Palestinians are looking for a way to back down from the initiative) and attempts by the so-called quartet -- the U.S., U.N., European Union and Russia -- to come up with a proposal for renewing direct negotiations with Israel.
A high-ranking delegation headed by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad attended Saturday's festive ceremonies in the new state, and caretaker Foreign Minister Reyad Malikitold media outlets he hoped their presence there would "remind the world of the Palestinians and their just cause."

I'm not sure why this Ha'aretz editorial was worth citing. It appears that Israel is successfully using diplomacy to fight the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood, by influencing nations to support it. I know that's not the "diplomatic plan" the editors of Ha'aretz have in mind. But there is more than a little hypocrisy in having a Palestinian representative at the ceremonies. Two years ago, Omar Bashir was warmly received at the Arab summit. This led the editors of the Washington Post to remark:

"We stress our solidarity with Sudan and our rejection of the decision" of the ICC, said the communique, which Mr. Bashir welcomed in a bombastic address to the summit plenary. Leader after leader declared fealty. "We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir," said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Abbas is hoping that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to stop building "illegal" settlements in the West Bank; the next time he utters the phrase "double standard" in the presence of a U.S. diplomat, we suggest a query about Mr. Bashir. 

Remarkable isn't it? When it came to Sudan the Arab league defied international law and Mahmoud Abbas embraced the man who subjugated what is now South Sudan. Now he celebrates the creation of the new state. The Saudis embraced Bashir too.

MK Moshe Yaalon said in an interview that he thinks the unilateral declaration is a non-starter.

5) Honest brokers?

The Quartet apparently can't agree on something. (h/t Omri Ceren)

The foreign ministers of the Middle East Quartet failed to reach an agreement on Monday surrounding the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and therefore did not issue a public statement on their meeting meant to renew Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Western diplomats and senior officials in Jerusalem said Tuesday. 

"The goal was to give each side something that was important to them," a Western diplomat said. "The Palestinians were supposed to get 1967 borders with land swaps and the Israelis wanted to receive in return the recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland, but there was no agreement on this matter." 

This is disturbing for two reasons. Israel as a Jewish state should be a given. If the "honest brokers" of the Quartet aren't unanimously in support of that, they are not honest brokers. And why should Palestinian acceptance of that premise be a bargaining chip?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.