Old Canards of Jewish Control & Undue Influence: Messrs. Walt & Mearsheimer Strike Again

Under the rubric of academia, the two professors have lengthened their initial arguments against the 'Israel Lobby' into a full-length book. The shoddy scholarship remains. "The book does not include any interviews with current or former government officials about the lobby's influence on foreign policy. Although the book appears to contain much documented research, its authors fail to capture the realities of policy formation and present a series of letters, statements and rallies by supporters of Israel as evidence of the lobby's manipulation of Washington. Their description of American foreign policy is often inaccurate or misleading, and their overall thesis is contradicted by central figures in their story."-Ben Fishman-see article below
Walt and Mearsheimer reference two serial distorters of reality and virulent anti-Zionists, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein to bolster their arguments. Chomsky, who was dubbed by the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. "an intellectual crook," once made this outrageous statement: "The Hebrew press is much more open than the English language press, and there’s a very obvious reason: Hebrew is a secret language, you only read it if you’re inside the tribe. Like most cultures it’s a tribal culture.”--- Noam Chomsky, in a speech to the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (delivered by live video to MIT), October 11, 2002; published as “Anti-Semitism, Zionism and the Palestinians,” Variant (a Scottish arts magazine), winter 2002
And Finkelstein “can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo. I would think that, for them, it is like Lee Iacocca being told that Chrysler is using Toyota tactics.”---Norman Finkelstein, “Canadian Jewish Organizations Charged with Stifling Campus Debate,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May/June, 1992, by John Dirlik
So much for academic rigor and serious scholarship.
David Brumer



The Lobby - David Remnick (The New Yorker)
Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.
But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument - a prosecutor's brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.
Where many accounts identify Osama bin Laden's primary grievances with American support of "infidel" authoritarian regimes in Islamic lands, Mearsheimer and Walt align his primary concerns with theirs: America's unwillingness to push Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. (It doesn't matter that Israel and the Palestinians were in peace negotiations in 1993, the year of the first attack on the World Trade Center, or that during the Camp David negotiations in 2000 bin Laden's pilots were training in Florida.) Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business.
It's a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars.
There is scant mention of Palestinian violence or diplomatic bungling, only a recitation of the claim that, in 2000, Israel offered "a disarmed set of Bantustans under de-facto Israeli control." (Strange that, at the time, the Saudi Prince Bandar told Yasser Arafat, "If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime.")
Nor do they dwell for long on instances when the all-powerful Israel lobby failed to sway the White House, as when George H. W. Bush dragged Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid peace conference



Missing the Point - Ben Fishman

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt consistently misrepresents U.S. decision-making in the Middle East. Mearsheimer and Walt manufacture causal connections between the lobby's activities and American actions that Bush Administration insiders rebuke. The book does not include any interviews with current or former government officials about the lobby's influence on foreign policy. Although the book appears to contain much documented research, its authors fail to capture the realities of policy formation and present a series of letters, statements and rallies by supporters of Israel as evidence of the lobby's manipulation of Washington. Their description of American foreign policy is often inaccurate or misleading, and their overall thesis is contradicted by central figures in their story. The writer is a researcher and special assistant to former Ambassador Dennis Ross at the Washington Institute. (National Interest/Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

See also Understanding the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim - Dore Gold (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

and Two Professors Fail to Clean Up Their Act - Ira Stoll (New York Sun)

and Stand With Us' illuminating expose below
WALT AND MEARSHEIMER NEW: Materials from Stand With Us

Shoddy Scholarship, Distorted Facts and Faulty Analysis
“The ‘facts’ presented by Mearsheimer and Walt suggest a fundamental ignorance of the history with which they deal, and that the ‘evidence’ they deploy is so tendentious as to be evidence only of an acute bias.” 1
– Benny Morris, Historian
“Walt/Mearsheimer’s paper, complete with footnotes that misstate primary sources and ignore others, is worse than embarrassing. It is academic malpractice. No one contests their right to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts – nor to pass them off as the conclusions of ‘scholars.’” 2
– Rick Richman, Editor of “Jewish Current Issues”
“[Walt and Mearsheimer] quote only those people who basically have this point of view and don’t take a serious look at anything in a more profound way. It is masquerading as scholarship . . . I would say this is an effort to take a point of view and give it academic legitimacy.” 3
– Dennis Ross, Former U.S. Envoy to the Middle East
“Not only are these charges wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office over the years, but they also impugn the loyalty and the unstinting service to America’s national security by public figures… . As a Christian, let me add that it is also wrong and unfair to call into question the loyalty of millions of American Jews who have faithfully supported Israel while also working tirelessly and generously to advance America’s cause, both at home and abroad. They are among our finest citizens and should be praised, not pilloried.” 4
– David Gergen, Director of the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report.
“The Israel Lobby” is a biased work that fails to meet basic academic standards.
1. Benny Morris, “And Now for the Facts,” The New Republic, May 8, 2006.
2. http://www.jewishpress.com/print.do/17970/The_%27Israel_Lobby%27_And_Academic_Malpractice.html
3. http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29470
4. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm

Click Here to Read More..

Reclaiming a 'Rights-Based' Position on Israel's Moral Authority to Exist

Judea Pearl demonstrates why it is so important to challenge the calumnies and slanders that are so commonplace in academic and intellectual circles when it comes to Israel. Too often the moderates among us just take these outrageous and offensive comments on the chin. Yet it is vital that we reclaim a 'rights-based' position when it comes to defending Israel, and moreover, move away from our defensive, reactive postures to a more pro-active, assertive stance on Israel's immutable moral right to exist. We need to continually and consistently challenge all those who would deny that very right, and no longer give a pass to those who glibly refer to Israel as an "apartheid regime," Zionism as "an evil force." or any other of the commonplace slurs, demonizations, and deligitimatizations that are regularly hurled at Israel.
See also Dan Diker's piece below, "Why Israel Must Now Move from Concessions-Based Diplomacy to Rights-Based Diplomacy" and Moshe Ya'alon piece in today's L.A. Times.
david brumer


http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/searchview.php?id=18061


"I also noticed that personal indignation has the magic power of shifting the frame of discourse from arguing Israel's policies to the very core of the Middle East conflict -- denying Israel's legitimacy -- an issue where Israel's case is strongest and where Israel's adversaries find themselves in an embarrassing and morally indefensible position."
2007-08-17
You have the right to feel offended
By Judea Pearl
Like many of us, I am on the e-mail lists of friends and colleagues who occasionally call my attention to an article worth reading. So it was that on one of these bright California mornings, I received a message from a colleague with an article and a comment: "Palestinians, with all their suffering under the Israeli apartheid regime, have never been Holocaust deniers." It is, by today's standards, a rather commonplace remark -- one that could have been written by any of my friends from the far left or the Muslim community. I would normally either brush it off with a head shake: "There he goes again, the same old rhetoric," or start an argument on whether the comparison to apartheid South Africa is appropriate. I do not exactly know what it was that morning that compelled me to do neither of the two but resort, instead, to what I normally refuse to do -- take offense. It may have been the recent vote in the U.N. Human Rights Commission, calling for a ban on "religious insults" or it may have been the latest press blitz on the moral ills of Islamophobia. Whatever the cause, somehow an invisible force jolted me into writing my colleague thus: "The word 'apartheid' is offensive to me. In fact, it is very, very offensive. And, since I am not situated on the extreme end of the political spectrum, I venture to suspect that there are others on your e-mail list who were offended by it and who may wish to tell you that this word is not conducive to peace and understanding. It conveys anger, carelessness and a desire to hurt and defame. Hence, it shuts off the ears of the very people you are attempting to reach.

I realized that taking offense is a statement of conscience that shifts attention from the accused to the legitimacy of the accusation. It calls into question the accuser's choice of words, his assumptions, his worldview, as well as his intentions, and, thus, turns the accuser into a defendant, at least for a short moment of reflection.

A few weeks later, a similar incident occurred. This time, harsh anti-Zionist slurs were scattered throughout an essay authored by the sender -- a history professor at an American university. Essentially, the author blamed Zionism for being the evil force that drives Bernard Lewis' "anti-Muslim diatribes. "Emboldened by my previous experience, I sat down and wrote this man -- let's call him Mahmoud -- a message, this time a little longer. I explained that I had found his contempt of Zionism deeply offensive and that given that I consider myself progressive and open-minded, others may share my feeling but were too polite to say so."I hope," I said, "that as a writer who spends pages describing how offensive Orientalism and Islamophobia are to Muslims and Arabs, that you will be able to understand other people's sensitivities and accommodate them in the future." I then went further and explained to Mahmoud that, for me, Zionism is the realization of a millennium-old belief in the right of the Jewish people to a national home in the birthplace of their history, a right that is no less sacred than that of the Palestinians or the Saudis. Additionally, I wrote, it pains me to see my hopes for peace being spat upon. Such hopes require that all sides accept a two-state arrangement as a historically just solution, and anti-Zionist rhetoric, by negating the legitimacy of this solution, acts as an oppressor of peace.

I also noticed that personal indignation has the magic power of shifting the frame of discourse from arguing Israel's policies to the very core of the Middle East conflict -- denying Israel's legitimacy -- an issue where Israel's case is strongest and where Israel's adversaries find themselves in an embarrassing and morally indefensible position.

We, as Jews, have been grossly negligent in permitting the dehumanization of Israel to become socially acceptable in certain circles of society, especially on college campuses. Our silence, natural resilience to insults and general reluctance to confront colleagues and friends have contributed significantly to the Orwellianization of campus vocabulary and the legitimization of the unacceptable. Most of our assailants are even unaware of the shivers that go down our spines with utterances such as "apartheid Israeli regime" or "brutal Israeli occupation."But if we take seriously the moral basis for our right to take offense and exercise that right broadly and consistently, a reverse process of de-Orwellianization will ensue. If instead of avoiding confrontation, swallowing our insults or letting ourselves be dragged into defensive arguments, we simply halt the conversation and assert with honesty and dignity, "Sorry, this is offensive to me," or "This is unacceptable," we will reclaim the respect that our adversaries plan to trample. History and decency have given us that right. If we act on it proudly and resolutely, the word will quickly come around that good company no longer accepts smearing Israel with apartheid or bashing Zionism as a crime.
Judea Pearl gives commencement address at the University of Toronto, June 21
Judea Pearl is a UCLA professor and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation http://www.danielpearl.org. He is a co-editor of "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl" (Jewish Lights, 2004). © 2006 jewishjournal.com


http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=375&PID=0&IID=1607&TTL=Why_Israel_Must_Now_Move_from_Concessions-Based_Diplomacy_to_Rights-Based_Diplomacy
Why Israel Must Now Move from Concessions-Based Diplomacy to Rights-Based Diplomacy
Dan Diker

Israel faces a painful paradox. Its generous territorial concessions climaxing in the 2005 Gaza withdrawal have not resulted in greater international support or sympathy, but rather a further deterioration in its international standing. Indeed, the very legitimacy of the Jewish state continues to be questioned in international circles including the West.
Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip expecting both peace and broad international understanding in the event that these areas would be used to attack Israel in the future. However, the condemnations of Israel only seem to be worsening. On May 15, 2007, Amnesty International condemned Israel for "war crimes" in its previous summer's defensive war against Hizbullah. Britain's University and College Union (UCU), the largest academic organization in the United Kingdom, accused Israel of crimes against humanity and apartheid.
Ironically, mounting criticism of Israel has occurred as Israeli civilians have come under repeated attack from Kassam rockets launched from the post-withdrawal Gaza Strip. The concern in Israel over ever-sharpening anti-Israel sentiment even brought the liberal daily Ha'aretz to conclude in its lead editorial of May 27, 2007, that "Britain has become the battlefield in Israel's fight for existence as a Jewish state, and . . . the anti-Zionist winds blowing in Europe strengthen the position [there] that the birth of the Jewish state was a mistake."

Misinterpreting the Mideast - Moshe Ya'alon

Some believe that "the Occupation" blocks agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. In the West, the term usually means the territories Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. But the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians -- Fatah and Hamas, in particular -- and even some Israeli Arabs use "Occupation" to refer to all Israel. They do not recognize the Jewish people's right to an independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international arena.

Before any lasting on-the-ground movement toward peace can be achieved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, foreign emissaries, as well as some Israelis, will have to shake off some long-disproved tenets of the conventional wisdom about the dispute.
There are four main misconceptions that diplomats bring with them to Israel. Primary among them is the idea that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a prerequisite for stability in the Mideast. The truth is that the region is riven by clashes that have nothing to do with Israel. For instance, the Jewish state plays no role in the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis.
The second misconception is that Israeli territorial concessions are the key to progress. The reality is that Israeli territorial or other concessions simply fill the an ascendant jihadi Islamists' sails, reinforcing their belief that Israel and the West are weak and can be militarily defeated. The Mideast's central conflict is not territorial but ideological. And ideology cannot be defeated by concessions.
Some believe that "the Occupation" blocks agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. In the West, the term usually means the territories Israel conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967. But the heart of the problem is that many Palestinians -- Fatah and Hamas, in particular -- and even some Israeli Arabs use "Occupation" to refer to all Israel. They do not recognize the Jewish people's right to an independent state, a right affirmed again and again in the international arena.
Finally, some believe that the Palestinians want -- and have the ability -- to establish a state that will live in peace alongside Israel. But they are not being clear-eyed. The late Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, established a thugocracy that never improved the basic living conditions of his people. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not take responsibility for Gazans' welfare, which in part led to Hamas' electoral victory in 2006.
Shorn of these mistaken assumptions, the picture in the Middle East is disturbing indeed. So what to do?
For starters, Western governments and their emissaries must refrain from pressuring Israel for territorial or security concessions, which at best produces only short-term gains and emboldens the Islamist terror groups. Instead, they should try to persuade the Palestinian leaders to commit to a long-term strategy premised on educational, political and economic reforms that would lead to the establishment of a civil society that cherishes life, not death; values human rights and freedom; and develops a middle class, not a corrupt, rich elite.
Under no circumstances should emissaries attempt to open a dialogue with Hamas. For the sake of Palestinian society, Hamas and its ideology must be defeated. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the most significant today; it's the battle between jihadist Islam and the West, of which Israel is merely one theater.

Click Here to Read More..

The Art of Statecraft: How Messages are Internalized

One of the conundrums of modern diplomacy is how to foster progress in difficult regions like the ME without sending the wrong message to dangerous non-State actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda. Dennis Ross points out that we have to exercise our power intelligently, and not automatically grant recognition to non-State actors. While negotiations should never be ruled out, we should be careful in not conferring legitimacy to these organizations without a price: namely, playing by the minimum rules of the game of the civilized world. Groups like Hamas "should have to adjust to the world, not the other way around".

In a similar vein, Dore Gold reminds us, "Forty years ago when U.N. Resolution 242 was drafted, its architects understood that peacemaking required balance. Israel would have to compromise, but its diplomacy should not undermine the delicate strategic balance in the Middle East with a radical pullout that would leave it excessively vulnerable. Effective diplomacy today requires striking the same careful balance--seizing opportunities for real peace, but granting Israel its right to defensible borders."
The messages we send by our actions as well as our words are quickly internalized and exploited by those parties in the ME whose interest lie not in peace-making, but in gobbling up more territories in their inexorable pursuit of a worldwide Muslim Caliphate. Indonesia: Islamic Caliphate Conference to Attract 100,000 (AKI-Italy)
david brumer


Good Statecraft Treats State and Non-State Actors Differently - Dennis Ross

Negotiations confer recognition. For that reason, it is essential to draw a distinction between states like Iran or Syria and non-state actors like Hizbullah and Hamas. For non-state actors, recognition is a major achievement. It creates legitimacy, builds momentum and creates a sense of inevitability about the achievement of their agendas. None of this should be given for free. Thus, while I am not prepared to exclude direct negotiations or meetings as a tool of statecraft with states, it is essential to treat non-state actors differently. Take the example of Hamas, a non-state actor now dominant in Gaza. There is a need to avoid a humanitarian crisis. But if Hamas wants developmental assistance or investment coming to Gaza, they should have to play by the basic rules of the game - one of which is stopping attacks against Israel. Hamas should have to adjust to the world, not the other way around. (Daily Star-Lebanon)

America's Latest Efforts Merely Entrenched Al-Qaeda in Gaza - Dore Gold (Wall Street Journal)
Pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 lines will not satisfy al Qaeda, nor will it bring peace. Right now, what the Palestinians need is help to build a stable civil society with governing institutions that work, not a return to the ceremonial diplomacy of the 1990s. The errors of past Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking have not been cost-free. They have real consequences in terms of loss of life and a deepening conflict. These initiatives do not halt the assault of radical Islam against the West. In fact, if mishandled, they can make it far worse.
In short, the U.S. and its Western allies thought that Israel's Gaza pullout would establish the foundations of a Palestinian state and thus reduce the flames of radical Islamic rage. Instead they got an al-Qaeda sanctuary on the shores of the Mediterranean.
The source of their error was a popular misconception in policy-making circles of what causes radical Islam to thrive. The gasoline fueling al Qaeda has been its sense of victory, not political grievances.
It should be remembered that in the 1990s, the U.S. and its allies addressed many political grievances of the Islamic world in Kuwait, Somalia and especially in Bosnia. In the Arab-Israeli sector, the Clinton administration devoted more time to Arab-Israeli diplomacy than most of its predecessors, with the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, the 1997 Hebron Agreement, the 1998 Wye Agreement, and finally the attempt to reach a permanent-status agreement at Camp David in 2000. But al Qaeda only grew in strength. There were attacks in Saudi Arabia in 1995, East Africa in 1998, Yemen in 2000 and finally 9/11.
In other words, there was no correlation between U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to ameliorate the grievances voiced by radical Islamic groups and the appeal of al Qaeda.
The U.S. and other Western powers are pushing for a new Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough to help contain Iran and undercut the appeal of al-Qaeda and radical Islam. The underlying assumption is that radical Islam has something do to with Israel-related political grievances. But is this really the case?
In August 2005, the U.S. and its Western allies thought that Israel's Gaza pullout would establish the foundations of a Palestinian state and thus reduce the flames of radical Islamic rage. Instead they got an al-Qaeda sanctuary on the shores of the Mediterranean.
What the Gaza pullout showed was that mishandling the Israeli-Palestinian issue can exacerbate the threat of radical Islam, especially if it deepens the sense in radical Islamic circles that their military efforts have paid off. The gasoline fueling al-Qaeda has been its sense of victory, not political grievances. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration devoted more time to Arab-Israeli diplomacy than most of its predecessors, arranging numerous diplomatic agreements. But al-Qaeda only grew in strength. In other words, there was no correlation between U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to ameliorate the grievances voiced by radical Islamic groups and the appeal of al-Qaeda.
The writer, Israel's ambassador to the UN in 1997-99, is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007).

Click Here to Read More..

On the One Year Anniversary of the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting

My reflections, written on the night of the fatal shootings, July 28th, 2006
May Pam Waechter's name and memory be forever blessed--'Yehi Zichra Baruch'

While it is still too early to fully assess the implications of the shooting at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle just hours before the onset of the Jewish Sabbath, some initial observations are in order. What happened on Friday was not an isolated hate crime, but is integrally connected to the larger dynamics currently playing out on the world stage, most notably the war that is raging in the Middle East today. In fact, the shooter, Naveed Afzal Haq, a 30 year-old Muslim-American from the tri-Cities area in central Washington, burst into the Federation, gun in hand, claiming he was upset “about what was going on in Israel” and opened fire, killing one woman and injuring five others, one seventeen weeks pregnant. Whatever we may come to learn in the coming days regarding his motivations and affiliations, it is no longer possible to ignore the fact that a battle is being waged today not just against Israel, but against the West, and just as Israel is the beachhead for this jihadist war in the Middle East, so are Jews around the world likely to find themselves increasingly at risk.
Only five days after The Seattle Jewish Federation and the Anti-Defamation League staged a rally in support of Israel, the Seattle Jewish community finds itself stunned by Friday’s attack. Last Sunday, close to 2,000 people banded together on a blisteringly hot day to show their solidarity with Israel, support her unassailable right to defend herself, demand that the international community not remain silent in the face of unprovoked aggression by Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, and to pledge their continued efforts to work towards peace and freedom for all peoples in the Middle East. Indeed, the very mission of the Jewish Federation is to “ensure Jewish survival and enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide”. How ironic that it is such an institution that is brutally attacked in broad daylight, signaling that Jewish life may well be under siege again.
Many will argue that today’s assault was an isolated incident, that the shooter was acting alone, and that it would be dangerous to draw any parallels to events in the Middle East and beyond. Yet it may prove increasingly difficult to divorce such incidents from the backdrop of the war currently being waged against Israel. The shooting came a day after the FBI had warned Jewish organizations nationwide to be on alert after Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon and, Al-Qaeda’s second in command, Al-Zawahri, urged followers to carry the war raging in the Middle East to the shores of America. Hamas and Hezbollah, the party of God, are both proxies of Iran; the latter using more and more sophisticated Iranian weaponry. Both organizations are united in their theology of genocide. The charters of both groups call for the destruction of Israel. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has declared his intention to “wipe Israel off the map” and called the Holocaust a “myth,” while his regime races to develop nuclear capabilities. Ahmadinejad has let the Jews the world over know that they are now legitimate targets of his wrath. Al-Zawahri has said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with “ceasefires or agreements.” He said, “it is a jihad for the sake of Allah and will last until (our) religion prevails…from Spain to Iraq. We’ll attack everywhere.” And Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, has been quoted as saying “We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.”
While the world watches the carnage in Israel, only to be appalled by the mounting civilian casualties in Lebanon, it should be remembered that it is the party of God, Hezbollah, that deliberately embeds itself among those civilians, from where it deliberately targets Israeli non-combatants on sovereign Israeli soil, with Iranian rockets penetrating deeper and deeper into Israel, a country the size of New Jersey. It’s high time for the international community to identify the aggressors, and to recognize that it is no longer just Israel and Jews that are in harm’s way. Just last week I wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer “Israel today is the beachhead against radical, fundamentalist Islam, whose ultimate goal is the re-establishment of a worldwide Muslim Caliphate. Perhaps it’s not outlandish to think that in the not too distant future we may come to understand that ‘today we are all Israelis’.” The not too distant future is upon us, and we ignore its encroachment at our peril.
David Brumer

Click Here to Read More..

On the Manipulation of Western Media Under the Guise of Freedom

Why do we confer undue legitimacy on the likes of Hamas spokespeople and Hezbollah media manipulators? Freedom of the press does not imply that we grant carte blanche to sworn enemies of the very freedoms western civilization cherishes.
The western press has always employed editorial discretion in determining what is worthy of publication. Denying crass manipulators of truth and reality a mass public forum is not the same as censorship. It is merely the sane exercise of an intelligent selection process. As Hier & Cooper note below, would we also entertain giving op-ed space today to the likes of Dr. Mengele?

In a similar vein, Marvin Kalb looks at how we in the West were crassly manipulated by the expert propagandists of Hezbollah in last summer's Lebanon War. Where was the MSM when it should have been challenging the 'fixers' of Hezbollah, who determined when and where and what could be covered? Why was it not deemed peculiar that no Hezbollah 'soldiers' were filmed during the war? As Kalb points out, it was as if Israel was fighting ghosts. Hezbollah expertly manipulated the coverage so that most of what the West got to see was women and children fleeing from the smoldering rubble of Israeli 'aggression.'
david brumer

A Byline for Hamas?
Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper

First, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously ran Op-Ed articles by Ahmed Yousef, a senior leader of Hamas who defended his group's bloody putsch in Gaza. Now, the Los Angeles Times has opened its Op-Ed page to Hamas political bureau deputy Mousa Abu Marzook. Whatever happened to the basic standards that civilized people are expected to live by? Why is the Times conferring a journalistic honoris causa degree on terrorists whose modus operandi is to deliberately target innocent civilians of all faiths on buses, in theaters and in shopping malls? Hamas' views deserve real-time coverage, just the way the statements and actions of Hitler and Stalin received coverage. But such people do not deserve the status of a sagely byline, because that destroys the distinction between honorable men and women bound by basic principles of humanity and the despots and terrorists eager to destroy those values. If the criteria is simply because "it is an important story," then would the editors have welcomed articles by Auschwitz's Dr. Josef Mengele justifying his gruesome medical experiments, or by the Virginia Tech killer explaining why he committed mass murder? When will Osama bin Laden's guest column appear? Newspapers don't have the right to bestow editorial credibility on those bent on genocide. (Los Angeles Times)

(video) Marvin Kalb: Hezbollah intimidated & manipulated western media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83mxTzMeEbo

Prof. Marvin Kalb is saying that Hezbollah intimidated and manipulated the western media and that Israel deals with news while Hezbollah deals with news that is propaganda. Look at minute 4:01 in which he tells how Hezbollah misled the western media by making up an event that never occurred in reality and also at the start where he talks about how Hezbollah threatened to confiscate cameras of journalists.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-012
The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict

By Marvin Kalb
Working Paper Number:RWP07-012Submitted: 02/28/2007
Abstract:
Based on content analysis of global media and interviews with many diplomats and journalists, this paper describes the trajectory of the media from objective observer to fiery advocate, becoming in fact a weapon of modern warfare. The paper also shows how an open society, Israel, is victimized by its own openness and how a closed sect, Hezbollah, can retain almost total control of the daily message of journalism and propaganda.

Click Here to Read More..

On the Disastrous Consequences of "Enabling": Pitfalls Ahead of New 'Mideast Envoy'

The psychology of 'Victimhood' is alive and well and continues to get resuscitated by the West. As discussed several blog entries ago, Why "Enabling" Only Perpetuates the Problem, enablement postpones responsible behavior in individuals as well as collectives. Ironically, the well-meaning, would-be do-gooders fall into the trap of accomplishing the exact opposite of their purported goals. Rather than truly empower peoples by alerting them that there will be consequences to misbehavior, they instead reward skullduggery, shameless corruption, brutality, misogyny, and barbaric terrorism. The do-gooders of the West patronize their massive aid recipients, the Palestinians, indifferent to the mammoth evidence of decades of squandered billions. With breathtaking condescension and subconscious racism, it is assumed that the Palestinians cannot really be expected to behave any better. For all the talk about respecting a culture that so values honor and dignity, the dolers of aid are really saying that the Palestinians are incapable of conducting themselves any differently. Is that the way to treat people honorably and in a dignified manner?
Freedom and self-determination don't just happen to a people, nor is it bestowed upon them. It is a historical process that cannot be bought. One of the prerequisites to statehood is the establishment of a monopoly on the use of force. The Palestinians have shown no aptitude, nor appetite, for such a process. All the riches in the world cannot change that fundamental reality.
Real progress may be possible when we stop patronizing the Palestinians and hold them to the same standards we apply to ourselves and the rest of the civilized world.
david brumer

Advice for Blair: Stop Patronizing the Palestinians - Gerald M. Steinberg

Real Israeli-Palestinian peace requires the type of societal transformations that take many years. This process will also require a basic change in international perceptions with respect to Palestinians. In particular, the patronizing and ineffective emphasis on Palestinian suffering and helplessness that has dominated actions since 1948 must end. Palestinians must be given the opportunity and the external push to take control over their own destiny, and stop seeing themselves simply as passive victims.

The rampant corruption and failed leadership in Palestinian society is, to a large degree, a product of the massive welfare system in effect since the Israeli defeat of the 1948 Arab invasion, and the refugees that resulted. At that time, "temporary" camps and housing were created under control of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Rather than work to end their refugee status, as in many similar situations of warfare and displacement, (and following Israel's example of integrating hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who fled violence in Arab countries), this situation was deliberately and cynically perpetuated. The objective was blatantly political - as long as refugees and camps existed, the goal of reversing the UN partition resolution and the establishment of Israel remained alive. In this central respect, nothing has changed in almost 60 years.
Beyond the massive economic cost of maintaining this situation (UNRWA spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year), more damage is caused by perpetuating the image of Palestinian victimization. The Arab defeat in the 1967 war led to the reinforcement of this image, as well as further increases in welfare funding through other aid and development frameworks through European governments, major churches, and powerful via pro-Palestinian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although the PLO was founded in 1964, and came to be accepted as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", its leaders limited their activities to the political and military struggle against Israel. Yassir Arafat showed no interest in building civil society or ending the dependence and victimization. On the contrary, for decades, he was a major contributor to this syndrome.

The international community, and particularly European governments, perpetuated and widened this process, handing over additional funds, often in bags of cash handed directly to Arafat and his cronies. Officials in London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Oslo, Bern, Stockholm, Rome and elsewhere, ignored the obvious evidence of massive corruption and the lack of interest in building institutions or providing services (the report written much later by the EU's watchdog agency OLAF remains a tightly guarded secret, making a mockery of European calls for transparency).
The core reason for allowing huge amounts of European tax revenues to disappear among Palestinian officials was paternalism. European leaders did not expect anything better from Arafat and Fatah, and did not try or condition aid to fundamental changes. After the 1993 Oslo peace framework established the Palestinian Authority and the refugee camps in this territory ceased to exist, the image of victims and helpless refugees continued, and the corruption increased, abetted by the donors.
In parallel, the "Palestinian cause" and the prevalent image of helpless victims was perpetuated among self-proclaimed human rights groups and other NGOs, in the media, in churches, on university campuses, and among politicians. In Britain, powerful groups such as War on Want, Christian Aid, and others held rallies for the Palestinians, collected funds, and demonized Israel through boycott and divestment campaigns. European leaders continued to embrace Arafat until his death, long after his personal corruption and failed leadership was revealed and many Palestinians distanced themselves. By the same token, Palestinians were not expected to behave by the ordinary rules of moral and civilized behavior, or to respect human rights. And no terror attack, including bus bombings and suicide bombers in cafes, was considered repulsive enough by officials in Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch to change in this neo-colonialist image of Palestinian victimhood.

Financial Aid Will Not Change Palestinian Political Perceptions - Yaron LondonThe assumption is that showering the PA with funds will lead to prosperity, and that prosperity will moderate young Palestinians' passion for 72 virgins awaiting them in heaven. This hypothesis is premised on a mistaken assumption that improvement in living conditions can change perceptions, while in fact the opposite is true. Donations save people from starvation and make leaders wealthy, but they do not serve to change the cultures of societies and do not drive them to success. The aid provided to Palestinian refugees and their offspring by UNRWA since 1948 atrophied their ability to rehabilitate themselves and is one of the reasons for their political behavior. Hence, it is doubtful whether increasing economic support to the PA will change anything in the Palestinian political culture. (Ynet News)

The Real Obstacle to Peace: Genocidal Jihad - Saul Singer
The first thing Tony Blair should do is rethink the whole concept of a "Mideast envoy." What the job needs most now is not a mediator but a truth-teller. The more Israel embraced Palestinian statehood, the more violent and radicalized the Palestinians have become. During last summer's war in Lebanon, Blair hit on the real obstacle to peace. He said Hizbullah was not fighting "for the coming into being of a Palestinian state, but for the going out of being of an Israeli state." The struggle for peace is no longer between Israelis and Palestinians. It is between the jihadi axis (Hamas, Hizbullah, al-Qaeda, Syria and Iran) and the West, moderate Arabs and Israel, who want to resolve the Palestinian problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Blair's first task for peace should be to expose the real obstacle to peace: the jihadi front's genocidal dream of destroying Israel. (Washington Post)

Click Here to Read More..

Against "Throwing Good Money After Bad"

Since the days of Arafat, we have been waiting for the 'moderates' to take matters into their hands, disempower the radicals in the West Bank & Gaza, demilitarize the gangs, warlords, and militias, and establish a monopoly on the use of violence; in short, for the Palestinians to have their 'Altalena' moment and earn international recognition in the family of civilized nations.
Sadly, Arafat never seized the moment when he still had the opportunity, preferring to divide his people so that he could continue pulling the marionette strings at his discretion. With his death and the ascension to power of Mahmoud Abbas, hope abounded that finally a true moderate would take action against all the divergent militia and terror groups, foremost among them Hamas.
But Abbas always had excuses for inaction. As Michael Oren points out below, Fatah has squandered most of the funds and good will provided by the U.S. and the international community over the past 14 years. Furthermore, Abbas could not assert himself when his party actually was in control of the Palestinian government. What should make us believe that 18 months after losing power to rival Hamas, that he now has any ability whatsoever to rein in the forces of radicalism and anarchy? Well-intentioned as he may be, he has proven to be an impotent leader with little capacity to garner grass-roots support.
david brumer


Fatah Isn't the Answer
Michael Oren
from the Wall Street Journal
June 20th, 2007

The green flags of Hamas are unfurling over Gaza and the Fatah forces trained and financed by the U.S. have ignominiously fled. Fears are rife that Iranian-backed and Syrian-hosted terror will next achieve dominance over the West Bank and proceed to undermine the pro-Western governments of Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf. To avert this catastrophe, the U.S. has joined with the Israelis and the Europeans in resuming the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid to the PA under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, and accelerating talks for the establishment of a West Bank Palestinian state.
But the policy ignores every lesson of the abortive peace process to date as well as Fatah's monumental corruption, jihadism and militancy. Indeed, the unbridled corruption of the PA and its Fatah headmen served as a principal cause of Hamas' electoral victory in 2006, as well as its takeover of Gaza.

Though Fatah originally aspired to replace Israel with a secular state, it refashioned itself in the 1990s as an Islamic movement, embracing the lexicon of jihad. Hundreds of mosques were built with public funds, and imams were hired to spread the message of martyrdom and the hatred of Christians and Jews. These themes became the staple of the official PA media, inciting the suicide bombings that began in 2000 and poisoning an entire generation of Palestinian youth.
Fatah has never fulfilled its pledges to crack down on terror. Though Mahmoud Abbas routinely criticizes Palestinian terrorist attacks as "contrary to the Palestinian national interest" - not an affront to morality and international law - he has never disavowed the al-Aqsa Brigades, a Fatah affiliate responsible for some of the bloodiest attacks against Israeli civilians.
In view of its performance over the past 14 years, the Palestinian Authority under Fatah can be counted on to squander most or all of the vast sums now being given to it by the U.S. and the international community. More gunmen will be hired and better weapons procured, but in the absence of a unified command and a leadership worth fighting for, PA soldiers will perform no more credibly than they did in Gaza. Abbas will continue to denounce terror while ignoring the terrorist units within his own organization, while PA imams will persist in preaching their jihadist sermons.
Clearly no progress toward Palestinian statehood can be made before Fatah has reformed itself financially, ideologically and structurally. This process is certain to take many years - longer if economic aid and political support are provided to the PA unconditionally.
The U.S., together with its Quartet partners, can work to establish areas of extensive Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank. Security, however, will be jointly administered by Israel and Jordan. The Jordanian involvement is crucial to convincing Palestinians that the status quo of occupation has ended and they may in the future assume full responsibility for their internal defense. Such an arrangement will benefit Jordan as well, by facilitating its efforts to fight radicalism and stem the flight of Palestinians over its borders.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center and the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (Norton, 2007).

Click Here to Read More..