Mideast Media Sampler 05/18/2011

From an email by DG:

1) NYT vs. Bibi

Thomas Friedman writes in Bibi and Barack

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can’t speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. 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. 

There so much nonsense in this paragraph it's hard to know where to begin.
But let me begin at the end. If Israel needs "creativity" to find ways to "securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state," then Friedman is implicitly admitting that the impasse is not Israel's fault. After all, supposedly the Palestinian want their own state; why should it require "creativity" to give land to them towards that end? It's like saying a rich guy needs to find a creative way to give $1000 to a panhandler. The panhandler should want the money; it shouldn't require any creativity for the rich man to give it to him. (Actually a better analogy might be that the rich man has already given the $1000 and now it's his responsibility to get the panhandler to spend the money.)

It's really worse than that. The Palestinian Authority effectively has control over most of the areas that would constitute "Palestine," and yet they refuse to sit down to negotiate. It wasn't Netanyahu who refused Olmert's offer and it wasn't Netanyahu who refused to negotiate with Abbas.

As far as Friedman's assertion that there's a "democratic and populist" Arab world coming, he really needs to read Walter Laqueur's "Another revolution betrayed." The outcome of the revolutions is far from certain. Friedman would do well to rely on someone older and wiser rather than is own glibness. As far as the comparison to South Africa; if that's the best Friedman can come up with he is really out of ideas. As noted above; Israel has effectively ceded most of the territory of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority.

But if either side is likely to be an illegitimate regime, the Palestinian Authority has allied itself with Hamas a terrorist organization. But Friedman hasn't gotten exercised over that repudiation of the peace process. Instead he creates an alternative non-existent future, to say Israel must give in to Palestinian demands.

Israel is losing support because of the outsize influence of the Islamic world, which seeks to destroy Israel, and its apologists, like Friedman, who endlessly validate the grievances with Israel rather than demanding any real change of Israel's enemies.

Elder of Ziyon notes who really likes Friedman's column.

If anything, the editorial President Obama and the Arab Spring was worse than Friedman's column.

There is blame all around: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is scheduled to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Friday, has shown little interest in negotiations and has used the regional turmoil as one more excuse to hunker down. Arab leaders haven’t given him much incentive to compromise. President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority wants a deal but seemed to give up after Mr. Obama couldn’t deliver a promised settlement freeze. 

Arab leaders have never given any Israeli leader much reason to compromise, except Anwar Sadat and King Hussein. But given that Egypt seems to be heading to a government that is openly hostile both to Israel and the idea of peace with Israel, is "hunkering down" really blameworthy? And what in Abbas's history ever suggested that he wanted a deal? He rejected one offered by Olmert and he refused to negotiate with Netanyahu until the settlement freeze was nearly over. And just two weeks ago he allied himself with Hamas, which is still openly committed to Israel's destruction. Take the Palestinian side if you want, but at least get your facts straight!

This sentence is astounding in its illogic:

Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward. 

Huh? Didn't the Palestinians commit to a "peaceful way forward?" (Though they have regularly acted against peace.) Israel negotiated with the Palestinians, ceded territory and transferred aid and even weapons to the Palestinian Authority and it hasn't been enough for the Palestinians. But this is backwards anyway. If the President wishes to speak "persuasively about transformation in the Arab world," doesn't he need to show that he will support freedom and stand by allies? There is a disconnect here.

At the end of the editorial there is a kernel of truth:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t central to protests in Egypt, Libya or Syria. But as Mr. Assad proved, it is still a far too potent weapon for autocrats and extremists. 

No it isn't central and Assad's cynicism doesn't change that. And certainly pressuring Israel at this point will only serve to encourage Assad.

The Times also features a Room for Debate about the Middle East featuring Aaron David Miller, Shibley Telhami, Michelle Dunne, Menachem Klein, Rime Allaf and Daniel Levy. I'm not familiar with all of these august pundits, but a quick review shows that not a single one would be classified as pro-Israel, some blame both sides, but none defend Israel.

I bring this up because a few years ago the previous public editor of the Times, Clark Hoyt wrote a defense of the paper's decision to give op-ed space to Ahmend Yousef of Hamas. He argued that allowing a platform to Yousef was essential:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

But does the Times afford "good ideas" (i.e. a defense of Israel) to see much sunshine, outside of the letters page? Given yesterday's op-ed by Mahmoud Abbas, today's column by Thomas Friedman, the editorial and the "Room for debate" there wasn't a single opinion piece that made Israel's case. No one at the Times seems exercised by this one sided debate.

Adding insult to injury is yesterday's entry in the Lede, Egypt Holds 136 for Israeli Embassy Protest.
The article notes that those protesting are being held with little communication. And whose fault is this? Israel's. Maybe I'm reading the article to harshly, but the anti-Israel author of The Lede, Robert Mackey gives voice to a complaint that it's somehow wrong for the Egyptian authorities to protect the Israeli embassy but not Copts! Of course that's the negative spin. A country has a responsibility to protect the sovereignty of foreign embassies and minorities. That it is failing to do the latter doesn't exempt it from the former.

Elder of Zion and Israel Matzav both rewrote Mahmoud Abbas's op-ed, correcting it since the editor at the Times couldn't be bothred.JoshuaPundit, My Right Word, Honest Reporting, CAMERA, Israelly Cool and others have piled on!

2) Reality

In contrast to the New York Times, the editors of the Washington Post often demonstrate that they live in the real as demonstrated by Israel’s border bloodshed: Will Syria be held accountable?

Palestinians demonstrate every year against Israel’s founding, and Facebook organizers helped drum up support for Sunday’s marches in the style of the Arab Spring. But no one can reach the heavily militarized Syrian front with Israel without the consent and cooperation of the Assad regime. That Syria’s allies in Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah and Hamas, were visibly involved in the demonstrations was also telling. Like the dictatorship in Damascus, the terrorist groups are profoundly threatened by the Arab demands for democratic change — and trying to switch the subject to Israel is the region’s most familiar political gambit.

Which leads to the editorial questioning why the Obama administration hasn't taken a stronger stand against Assad. The paragraph about Israel is bewildering as it relies on "has been portrayed" to describe Israel's position. For now Israel is best silent about the foment in the Arab world. As the New York Times observed, the uprisings have nothing to do with Israel; assigning a view to Israel is in no way helpful. I don't believe for a moment that the Washington Post is pro-Israel, however unlike its counterparts in New York it is run by sensible people.

Technorati Tag: Middle East.