Mideast Media Sampler 07/12/2011

From DG:

Sorry for the lack of the sampler, Verizon - apparently in cahoots with the BDS movement - deprived my home of internet for 1 1/2 days. (Just joking about the BDS.)

1) WTF - Winning the flotilla

Last week I was annoyed by a Joel Greenberg article With Gaza flotilla stalled, both sides claim victory

Specifically Greenberg concluded with:

Medea Benjamin, an activist from Washington who was with the U.S. ship, said that even without reaching its destination, the effort to sail had succeeded in refocusing international attention on “the plight of the people of Gaza.” 

“We have still managed to show the lengths Israel is willing to go to stop a ragtag group of 10 ships and 300 unarmed peace activists from reaching Gaza,” Benjamin said by telephone from Athens. “This is not over. We’ve certainly won the propaganda war.”

But Ray Cook observed in the brilliantly titled Flotilla Founders, Flytilla Foiled, Fanatics Fail in Foolish Fiasco…

They came intent on breaking one blockade and then ended up having to contend with two as the Greek port authorities blocked their departure or chased them as they tried to slip away.

When you don't achieve your primary goal you didn't succeed. Saying that you succeeded when you didn't doesn't make you successful. And getting a sympathetic reporter to carry your boast uncritically doesn't make it a victory either!

But if flotilla II was a failure, what about the so-called flytillla? Well according to Isabel Kershner, that was a success!

The Palestinian hosts decried the Israeli measures, but also chalked up a small victory. 
Fadi Kattan, a Palestinian organizer, said at a news conference in Bethlehem that he was “pleased — sadly pleased” that the episode had exposed what he described as Israel’s draconian anti-Palestinian policies. 

"[D]raconian?" There's a key revelation a little later.

“Like any other airline operating internationally, Lufthansa has to comply with the immigration laws and administrative decrees of the country we are flying to,” said Martin Riecken, a spokesman for the airline. 
Such requests by national governments are not altogether uncommon, Mr. Riecken said, noting for example the United States’ no-fly list, which includes several thousand names. 

In other words Israel's restrictions are par for the course, even for democracies.

There's another aspect to this reporting that's troublesome. Elsewhere Kershner writes:

Israel’s Internal Security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, had branded the potential visitors as “hooligans.” Mr. Netanyahu said that every country has the right to block the entry of “provocateurs.” 
Still, Israeli commentators and some politicians have described the Israeli preparations as excessive and bordering on hysterical. 

For the most part Kershner achieved balance in this article by alternating criticisms of the Israeli government from Palestinians with criticisms of the Israeli government from Israelis.

Guess what was just reported:

Earlier Monday, Palestinian demonstrators and several foreign activists tore down part of an Israeli fence in the northern West Bank. Activists said some of the foreigners had flown into Israel over the weekend.

i.e. the activists proved themselves to be "hooligans" and "provocateurs." Do you figure the New York Times will acknowledge that the Israeli government's descriptions were accurate?

Others also noted that that this wasn't exactly the peaceful behavior that was advertised.

2) Republicans and Israel

I didn't read this Glenn Kessler "fact check" on Republican candidates and Israel. But based on the critiques it's not too surprising.

David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy offers a short critique of Kessler's argument, concluding:

So GOP candidates are bashing Obama on Israel for the same reason they bash him on abortion, health care, spending, and so on–it appeals to their conservative constituents.

Yid with Lid offered a longer systematic critique of Kessler. Towards the end of his Yid withh Lid notes some of the ways President Obama has mishandled the Middle East peace process.

Obama's  policy on settlements was not only broke an agreement between the United States and Israel, but it was another example of his naivete regarding foreign policy. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor one, a major error by the Obama team. When he added Jerusalem to his demands it just compounded the situation. His insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State turned the Israeli population against Obama, and increased the support of Prime Minister Netanyahu even with the Israeli left, no fans of Bibi.

At the same time the President's demands have gave the Palestinians an excuse to avoid negotiations and the other Arab nations an excuse to avoid making the "gestures" Obama wanted. 

An important fact that Kessler omits is that Israel declared a ten month building freeze which the Palestinians ignored for the first nine months. Even as the freeze was about to expire, the Palestinians rejected a deal where Israel would extend the freeze indefinable if they would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Nothing here that the Washington Post columnist, Jackson Diehl would disagree with (strongly).

There is a reason that folks necessarily tie support of Israel to Jews. By doing so they make support of Israel a matter of faith, not logic. It makes it easier to dismiss the pro-Israel arguments as deriving from a parochial, religious worldview as opposed to the well considered "even handed" (which is often simply a cover for "pro-Arab" or "pro-Palestinian") approach to the Middle East.

An excellent (or terrible) example of this mindset permeated this article in the New York Times 3 years ago. The following condescending paragraph was followed by a number of straw men, making it appear that the only reason that Jews would not vote for Obama would be misinformation and prejudice.

Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. In his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

3) Israel is just like any other democracy

Israel just passed a law outlawing active support of boycotts of Israel. There's a pretty good description of the law in the Jerusalem Post, which editorially opposes the bill. The news report informs us:

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said the bill should be sent back to committee for changes but he supported it in general terms.

Requesting changes to clause 4 of the bill, which puts much of the responsibility in the hands of the finance minister to decide whether a boycott has been called for, Steinitz said the ministry “does not want to be the lone high judge.”

The basic notion of the legislation, however, does not obstruct freedom of expression, the finance minister said.

“Democracy doesn’t mean that one group takes down another with economic power,” Steinitz said. “That is not an appropriate use of freedom of expression.”

Plesner also spoke out against boycotts, saying “I don’t think they’re the correct political tool.”

“However, I will fight for my political rival’s right to express his opinion with a boycott.

“There is no doubt that this bill will reach the High Court, and the Knesset legal adviser will have a difficult time defending it,” Plesner said.

Note that there is a process here. Yes the bill passed. But it still is subject to modification and review. Any such subtlety was mostly missing from Isabel Kershner's report:

Critics and civil rights groups denounced the new law as antidemocratic and a flagrant assault on the freedom of expression and protest. The law’s defenders said it was a necessary tool in Israel’s fight against what they called its global delegitimization. 

At least Kershner acknowledged this:

In an opinion issued earlier on Monday, the legal adviser of the Parliament, Eyal Yinon, determined that elements of the bill bordered on unconstitutionality and struck at the core of political freedom of expression. However, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein gave the bill his approval. 

Still the bulk of the article is given to the critics of the bill and treated as a freedom of expression issue. But in truth the boycotts against Israel are more than just a matter of expression as the history of boycotters tell as well as their own words.

“BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.”

-Ronnie Kasrils

I've just discovered that the Times edited out two significant paragraphs at the end of the original story, (it was titled: Israel Outlaws Pro-Palestinian Boycotts now it's titled Israel Bans Boycotts Against the State)

“For years now there have been laws in the United States that come with fines and prison sentences for anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, and yet the Israeli who persuades American companies to boycott us is completely exempt. That is ludicrous,” Mr. Elkin was quoted as saying in the popular Yediot Aharonot newspaper. 

He was referring to a federal law in the United States that forbids Americans from complying with, furthering or supporting a boycott of a country that is friendly to the United States. 

This appears to be a correct reading of the relevant laws as explained here:

The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to all "U.S. persons," defined to include individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates. These persons are subject to the law when their activities relate to the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods or services between the United States and a foreign country. This covers U.S. exports and imports, financing, forwarding and shipping, and certain other transactions that may take place wholly offshore.

Even if Elkin isn't correct in the legal sense (that American anti-boycott laws would apply to the BDS campaign) he's still rhetorically correct (even America restricts the practice of boycotts generally.) I would assume that the Times removed the two paragraphs because they'll insist that American law would not apply to BDS.

Avi Mayer tweets this comment that really applies to all BDS supporters:

Let us all join @ibnezra in mourning #Israel democracy and freedom of expression, as he continues to robustly avail himself of both.

4) Out of Iraq

According to the New York Times Secretary of Defense Panetta is very concerned about Iranian efforts in Iraq. And in general:

American officials say that Iran supplies the militias with high-powered rockets and parts for powerful bombs that can pierce armor. In June, 15 American service members were killed in Iraq, nine of them in rocket attacks, American officials said. 

Iran’s motive, American officials say, is to claim credit for driving American forces out of Iraq at a time when those forces are more than halfway out the door in a withdrawal planned long ago. All 46,000 remaining United States troops in Iraq are to leave by the end of this year under an agreement between the two countries, but both Iraqi and American military commanders believe that some American forces should stay beyond 2011. 

Few Iraqi politicians are willing to admit publicly that they need American help, and Obama administration officials say they will consider staying only if the Iraqis ask. The subject is particularly sensitive because the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr helped the current government come to power and has said many times that the United States should leave immediately. 

The Associate Press explained Panetta's concern:

A blunt and frustrated U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressed exasperation Monday with Iraqi indecision on whether it wants U.S. troops to stay next year. He threatened stronger U.S. action to stop Iranian-supplied weapons from killing Americans as they prepare to depart.
To reinforce the message of concern about Iran, the U.S. military gave reporters a rare look at samples of what they described as improvised rockets and other devices that have been used to target Americans in Baghdad. Iranian influence in Iraq is a key issue — diplomatically as well as militarily — for Washington as it prepares to pull out its remaining 46,000 troops.

Jonathan Spyer points out that the groups fighting the Americans are being trained by an organization withsimilar experience.

The Lebanese Hezbollah movement has been intimately involved in the training of Shia paramilitaries on behalf of Iran, since the early days of the US occupation of Iraq. As Arabic-speakers, the Lebanese have an obvious advantage over Iranians in operating relatively inconspicuously in Arab environments. 

Finally, Israel Matzav isn't impressed by Panetta's threat of stronger action.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.