Mideast Media Sampler 09/12/2011

From DG:

1) Israel hatred legitimate; peace not


Ethan Bronner writes in Beyond Cairo, Israel Sensing a Wider Siege (via memeorandum):

The overriding assessment of the government of Mr. Netanyahu is that such steps will only make matters worse because what is shaking the region is not about Israel, even if Israel is increasingly its target, and Israel can do almost nothing to affect it. 
“Egypt is not going toward democracy but toward Islamicization,” said Eli Shaked, a former Israeli ambassador to Cairo who reflected the government’s view. “It is the same in Turkey and in Gaza. It is just like what happened in Iran in 1979.” 
A senior official said Israel had few options other than to pursue what he called a “porcupine policy” to defend itself against aggression. Another official, asked about Turkey, said, “There is little that we can do.” 

But Bronner writes further:

But as the months of Arab Spring have turned autumnal, Israel has increasingly become a target of public outrage. Some here say Israel is again being made a scapegoat, this time for unfulfilled revolutionary promises.
But there is another interpretation, and it is the predominant one abroad — Muslims, Arabs and indeed many around the globe believe Israel is unjustly occupying Palestinian territories, and they are furious at Israel for it. And although some Israelis pointed fingers at Islamicization as the cause of the violence, Egyptians noted Saturday that Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, distanced themselves from Friday’s protests and did not attend, while legions of secular-minded soccer fans were at the forefront of the embassy attacks. 

Bronner explicitly removes Islamist influence as a factor in the hatred of Israel; rather describing the  hatred of Israel for the "unjust" occupation as a major concern of secular Egyptians.


In contrast, back in February, the New York Times reported After Long Exile, Sunni Cleric Takes Role in Egypt about Sheikh Qaradawi:

On Friday, he struck themes of democracy and pluralism, long hallmarks of his writing and preaching. He began his sermon by saying that he was discarding the customary opening “Oh Muslims,” in favor of “Oh Muslims and Copts,” referring to Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority. He praised Muslims and Christians for standing together in Egypt’s revolution and even lauded the Coptic Christian “martyrs” who once fought the Romans and Byzantines. “I invite you to bow down in prayer together,” he said.
He urged the military officers governing Egypt to deliver on their promises of turning over power to “a civil government” founded on principles of pluralism, democracy and freedom. And he called on the army to immediately release all political prisoners and rid the cabinet of its dominance by officials of the old Mubarak government. 

Never mind that Qaradawi's fatwas are not what most Westerners would call pluralistic. Qaradawi's handlers also banned the prominent secular activist Wael Ghonim from the stage. But there was the New York Times arguing that Qaradawi is moderate. Now when Israel believes that Islamists are gaining control of Egypt the same newspaper tells us that the extremism comes from the legitimate grievances of the secularists against Israel.


In general the media has been quick to report that the peace treaty is resented by Egyptians because it was supported by the despised Mubarak. Here's an ADL press release from 2002:

The report, Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media has been distributed to key foreign policy leaders and administration officials on Capitol Hill. ADL is urging members of the Bush administration and others who will confer with President Mubarak to press the issue directly with the Egyptian leader.


"We have raised this issue with President Mubarak on many occasions, and he responds with the argument that Egypt is a democratic society and that the government cannot dictate the views of editors and writers and producers," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "There is a basic fallacy in that logic, because leaders in a free society have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism. President Mubarak must condemn anti-Semitism in his society. His silence implies acceptance."

Official antisemitism in Egypt was a feature during Mubarak's regime, as was peace with Israel. Now that Mubarak has fallen only one of these is discredited - the peace with Israel.


Israel Matzav notes that something else was going on:

But what the Times has left out is that the rioters attacked many other embassies on Friday night (which might better explain that tweet from the Bahraini Foreign Minister that I noted in an earlier post), and that once again, the attacks had more to do with frustration of the revolutionaries over the slow pace of change in Egypt and less to do with Israel's dispute with the 'Palestinians.' The Times also gives the impression that if only Israel ended its 'occupation' of 'Palestinian territory' all would be well. The problem with that is that in the Arab Muslim mindset, the 'occupation' isn't just Judea and Samaria but Israel's very existence.

Indeed, this was a tack taken by the Washington Post, which reported In Egypt, critics question focus on Israel:

Many of the embassy protesters said their dignity depended on having a say on issues both domestic and international.
But a growing chorus of critics is questioning whether the focus on Israel is diverting energy from issues that more directly affect the daily lives of Egyptians. Some say the military council running the country is content to have Egyptians’ attention focused elsewhere to distract citizens from posing hard questions that might otherwise be directed at the council.
Israel should not get “more credit than it’s worth,” said Wael Abbas, an activist and blogger. “We should concentrate on building a state first.”

Interesting.


2) As one peace treaty with a dubious partner unravels, nothing will help more than another treaty with a dubious partner


As noted above, the Israeli embassy in Cairo - a place in the normal course of international affairs would be inviolate - has been attacked by mobs. As yet I haven't seen an American editorial expressing condemnation or even concern about this outrage. But the New York Times has an answer, Palestinian Statehood:

A United Nations vote on Palestinian membership would be ruinous. Yet with little time left before the U.N. General Assembly meets, the United States, Israel and Europe have shown insufficient urgency or boldness in trying to find a compromise solution.  The need for action is even more acute after alarming tensions flared in recent days between Israel and two critical regional players — Egypt and Turkey.  

And, of course, the editors of the New York Times have a villain:

Both sides share the blame with Mr. Obama and Arab leaders (we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts). But the best path to statehood remains negotiations.

Based on Mark Landler's tendentious reporting yesterday, indeed, one would conclude that Netanyahu was the obstacle. But Landler was writing a press release for Mahmoud Abbas not reporting seriously. The New York Times has no trouble getting its reporters to provide "documentation" for its increasingly fantastic editorials.


Barry Rubin observes:

Unfortunately, that is how Jews and Christian minorities are seen in Egypt and the other lands in the region: they have no rights that a Muslim or Arab is “bound to respect.” Those who make peace with Israel, and the agreements themselves, are by definition illegitimate, to be overturned as soon as possible, with any gains used legitimately to wipe Israel off the map. The land must always remain Muslim and Arab.
Such views are not completely inevitable but they are extraordinarily powerful. Moderate Arabs or Muslims can reject that view — as King Hussein of Jordan and Presidents Sadat and Mubarak did — but moderates nowadays are few in number and even fewer in power.  And no matter what their pretense or Western gullibility, no populist regime or Islamist can defy the lynch mob.
As Egyptian mobs assault the walls protecting Christian churches and Israel’s embassy, the “international community” assaults the  borders and policies protecting Israel. How can anyone still seriously claim that there will be a two-state solution, all strife will end, and everyone will live happily ever after? The dream of prosperity, social progress, peace, or better lives for one’s children — none of these things can withstand the demand for revenge, raw hatred, denial of any rights to the “other.” What you in the West think matters nothing — look with your eyes, listen with your ears, and see what the reality is.

The New York Times compounds its mendacity by running a companion op-ed by Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, Veto a state, lose an ally. Given that it isn't clear that Turki speaks for the Saudi government it demonstrates the lengths to which the New York Times will go to portray Israel as the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.