1) Kristof's offTechnorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.
As with other regular columnists for the New York Times, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman, Nicholas Kristof is anti-Israel.
He wote a column last week, Seeking Balance on the Middle East (also here). A number of fine bloggers have refuted this article.
His central contention, citing J-Street's Jeremy Ben Ami was:
That's because those Jews who vote and donate based on Israel are disproportionately conservative (the same is true of Christians who are most passionate about Israel issues). Mr. Ben-Ami argues that "the loudest 8 percent" have hijacked Jewish groups to press for policies that represent neither the Jewish mainstream nor the best interests of Israel.
Some see this influence of Jewish organizations on foreign policy as unique and sinister, but Congress often surrenders to loudmouths who have particular foreign policy grievances and claim to have large groups behind them. Look at the way extremists in the Cuban-American community have insisted upon sanctions on Cuba that have helped sustain Fidel Castro's rule.The charge that Kristof makes is that there's no peace because Israel's supporters support "right wing" policies is bogus. Israel has pursued peace and even the Palestinian "moderates" have rejected every significant effort. To listen to Kristof (and Ben Ami) is to refuse to hold the Palestinians responsible for their bad faith. For some reason, blindly supporting those who reject peace is considered enlightened.
2) Norwegian gall
Last week Barry Rubin wrote the Oslo Syndrome, in which he decried the way many gave a free pass to terrorist organizations such as Hamas. It was published in the Jerusalem Post and caused an international incident.
A representative of the Norwegian government wrote a Time to heal, which was published in the Jerusalem Post, and the Post itself added an editorial, Apology to Norway, criticizing both Prof Rubin and editor Caroline Glick for their columns, which were critical of Norway's support for Hamas.
Barry Rubin has responded with Norway and terror: Repressing discussion doesn’t help. Here is his main point:
What I’m saying – as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway – is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group such as Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.But it isn't just in word that Norway has abetted terrorists. Go back to January, 2006, Victor Comras at the Counter-terrorism blog noted:
Norway issued a startling declaration earlier this month. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store announced January 4th that his country would no longer follow the EU lead concerning the designation of terrorist organizations not included in the UN designated terrorist list. A Copy of the Foreign Ministry Statement is here. Norway had previously aligned itself with the EU's list of persons, organisations and entities set out in the Common Position on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism. The decision to now deviate from the EU means that organizations such as al aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, and some 45 other designated terrorist organizations around the world may no longer be subjected in Norway to the same restrictions other EU countries have placed on them. This includes freezing their assets and financial dealings. The full implication of this move is not yet clear. Norway has sought to allay concerns by stating that "the international legal obligations that form the basis for Norway's efforts to combat international terrorism will remain the same." Nevertheless, this step could put Norway seriously out of step with its NATO allies and the rest of Europe regarding the war on terrorism and combating terrorism financing.A few months ago, Alan Dershowitz observed:
The first boycott signatory was Trond Adresen, a professor at Trondheim. About Jews, he has written: "There is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews. . . . [They] as a whole, are characterized by this mentality. . . . It is no less legitimate to say such a thing about Jews in 2008-2009 than it was to make the same point about the Germans around 1938."
This line of talk—directed at Jews, not Israel—is apparently acceptable among many in Norway's elite. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock's reaction to President Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first chief of staff: "It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish." Mr. Willock didn't know anything about Mr. Emanuel's views—he based his criticism on the sole fact that Mr. Emanuel is a Jew. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewer than 1,000 Jews live in Norway today.The country's foreign minister recently wrote an article justifying his contacts with Hamas. He said that the essential philosophy of Norway is "dialogue." That dialogue, it turns out, is one-sided. Hamas and its supporters are invited into the dialogue, but supporters of Israel are excluded by an implicit, yet very real, boycott against pro-Israel views.Barry Rubin covers much similar ground and is well worth reading.
One additional point I'd make is this. Al Manar, the Hezbollah television station, charged that Israel was responsible for the terror attack in Norway. The charge was picked up and repeated in Lebanon's the Daily Star.Hezbollah’s statement said “Zionist terrorism” poses a danger to Palestinians and Arabs as well as to Europeans and warned against “attempts to overlook terrorism tied to Zionism.”“Concerning this assault, standards differ within the international community and positions are taken based on the identity of those accused of terrorism. If they were Muslims, then their culture and society would be condemned, whereas if they were close to Zionists, justifications and excuses would be sought,” it added.Hezbollah said attempts to overlook the incident’s link to Zionist terrorism would encourage further attacks.For some reason, though Norway's government did not see fit to register a protest with the Daily Star, despite Hezbollah's brazen exploitation of the Norwegian massacre. Jonah Gahr Store, Norway's foreign minister, though, wrote in January 2007:And likewise today with Hamas and Hezbollah: Their political horizon differs profoundly from ours. But they are realities on the ground; they cannot be abolished by some Western decree. How can we adequately deal with them, influence them and even pressure them if we do not talk and listen?So either Norway hasn't been listening all that closely to Israel's enemies, or listening doesn't involve judging them. But that is the problem. In both word and deed Norway dismisses or minimizes terror against Israel even as it makes antisemitism respectable. This is what Barry Rubin protested and why Norway doesn't deserve an apology.
3) More housing, less government?
One of the more perceptive takes on tent protests going on in Israel came from Elder of Ziyon:
Forgetting politics, all of this makes sense to me. I am no economist but it sure appears that Israel's economy has prospered in the past decade precisely because it has been abandoning socialist economic concepts and embraced the free market. While I am sympathetic to those who cannot afford housing, a free market would say that they should move to a more affordable area. The inconvenience is more than outweighed by the benefit to the entire nation. Governments do not always do a great job at regulating prices.Following his logic, the government could probably do more for the protesters by doing less - decreasing regulations that discourage building new housing. I doubt though that this is the goal of the protester, or leftist groups, like the New Israel Fund, which boasts of extending financial support to the protesters.
The leftist affiliation of the protesters was described by Sarah Honig (via Daled Amos):
Some are chronically “between jobs” and/or between schools, seeking to find themselves and their true calling. Some dabble in showbiz. They’re invariably agonized by the lack of popular recognition for their outstanding talents and hidden depths. Some smoke funny things, and all, without exception, are trendily left-wing – as befits rebels against bourgeois mom and dad (who nonetheless help pay the rent and provide laundry services).Alas, they can’t quite formulate what they want or quite how to go about achieving it. It’s all about the perceived exhilaration, not the practical solution. The buzz is the message.They flaunt political affiliations like Hadash – the largely Arab remnant of the local Communist Party, which is today headlined by MKs Muhammad Barakei, Haneen Zoabi and token Jew Dov Henin. No wonder former Tel Aviv mayoral candidate Henin was welcomed with whoops and cheers in tent city, whereas Mayor Ron Huldai (Labor), who defeated Henin, was booed and rudely ejected.David Bernstein looked at the protests from a different angle.The obvious solution, which the Netanyahu government is pursuing, is to make it easier to build new housing, which will increase supply and reduce prices. The protestors, however, aren’t interested in this, and instead want government housing assistance and government-built housing, for two primary reasons.
First, Israelis, despite a great liberalization of their economy since the mid-80s, are overall probably no less socialists at heart than, say, Greeks, and no more sympathetic to or understanding of, free market economics. I say, “increased supply with steady demand will bring lowered prices.” They would respond, “increased building will simply put more money into the hands of real estate developers, who will continue to price gouge.” The idea that housing prices are set by supply and demand, rather than by greedy developers, isn’t well accepted. (Consider how even in the U.S., politicians blame “greedy oil companies” when gas prices rise.)The second reason is more subtle: young Israelis who want to be able to afford housing don’t actually want prices to come down. The unaffordable apartments that currently exist, after all, are owned by their parents. While Americans typically see an inheritance from their parents as a windfall, Israelis see it as an entitlement. Your average 20– or 30-something Israeli includes their parents’ apartment, its value divided by the number of siblings, in their long-term wealth. So, oddly enough, the protestors want affordable housing so they can buy apartments and fulfill the “Israeli dream,” but they don’t actually want prices of existing apartments to fall!But still concluded:
One thing that’s NOT really feeding the protests, contrary to some media reports, is “inequality.” ...Given that the protestors are overwhelmingly secular young Jews from the center, these concerns are quite obviously not at the forefront of the protests.
No comments:
Post a Comment