Doc's Talk: Tu Quoque, The Economist

Monday, June 14, 2010

Tu Quoque, The Economist

Emmanuel Navon

“Can the whole world be wrong?" asked Koffi Annan in April 2002. His was a rhetorical question meant to make a sophistic point: If the UN says black and Israel says white, do the math and guess who’s right. Coming from a man under whose watch (whether as Head of the Peacekeeping Operations Department, as Under-Secretary General, or as Secretary General) the UN was passive at best and accomplice at worst during the Rwanda Genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, the Darfur ethnic cleansing and the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, asking such a question required no small amount of sang froid.

What Annan meant by "the whole world" was the UN, an organization numerically dominated by human rights violators. Similarly, what The Economist means by "the world" (“How Israel plays into Hamas’s hands," June 5th 2010) are those European dhimmis who refuse to face what Islam is up to. So, yes, "the world" of Koffi Annan and of The Economist can indeed be wrong.

If you were still wondering why Europe is expressing outrage at Israel’s act of self-defense while excusing Turkey’s provocations, then read the op-ed published in The New York Times on June 10th by Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini, and Miguel Moratinos. Those three European foreign ministers provide a crystal-clear explanation for their hypocrisy: they need to appease Europe’s Muslim citizens (here’s the quote: "[the flotilla incident] must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused").

The Economist’s articles on the flotilla incident are so hypocritical that one wonders if this otherwise insightful newspaper shares the concerns of Kouchner, Frattini and Moratinos. True, The Economist is not a European politician running for office or trying to appease the car-burning mobs of Paris or Malmö. But its editorial line on Islam-related issues is baffling: It supports Turkey’s membership in the EU, systematically uses the adjective "mildly Islamist" to describe Erdogan’s "Justice and Development" (AK) party, opposes the ban of the burqa in Europe, claims there is no contradiction between Islam and democracy, and that Muslims did (and do) a great job integrating in Europe.

Those claims defy logics. So does the fact that The Economist is surprisingly tolerant of Recep Erdogan. For a newspaper that has no qualms about exposing the buffoonery, incompetence, or brutality of heads of states and governments (its favorite and regular picks are Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe), one wonders why The Economist has nothing caustic to say about Turkey’s erratic Prime Minister. About the fact, for example, that Erdogan lectures Israel while he himself refuses to apologize for the Armenian genocide, to end the occupation of Cyprus, to accept the establishment of a Kurdish state, or to return the Alexandretta province it grabbed from Syria. Or that Ergogan "demands" that the 3% Turkish minority in Germany be granted the type of cultural autonomy he adamantly denies to Turkey’s 15% Kurdish minority. The Economist never expressed outrage at Erdogan’s public embrace of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, of Omar Bashir, and of Haled Mashal.

Like most European newspapers, The Economist condemns the Gaza blockade, though it only blames Israel for a policy that is also implemented by Egypt. It also fails to provide a credible alternative to the prevention of the massive armament of Gaza (its suggestion that the UN should "oversee the flow of goods and people going in and out of Gaza" doesn’t even pass the laughing test: The UN has been "overseeing" the massive rearmament of Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel). The Economist keeps insisting that "The contours of a two-state solution remain crystal-clear" though this solution has been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestinian Authority three times (at Camp David in July 2000; with the "Clinton Parameters" in December 2000; and with Ehud Olmert’s offer in September 2008).

In spite of the historical record, The Economist insists that the Palestinians are sincere about peace, but that Israel is not. While Benjamin Netanyahu "does not give the impression of being willing to give ground in the interests of peace," Mahmoud Abbas definitely does. The Economist "understands" why the Palestinians voted for Hamas (it’s because Israel prevents peace), but it won’t "forgive" Israelis for electing a conservative government (why, indeed, should Israelis have second thoughts about the wisdom of the Oslo process?). If only Israelis would be wise enough to replace their "right-wing" government (actually, a coalition with the Labor Party) for Tzipi Livni (wasn’t she Foreign Minister when Abbas said no to the "crystal clear solution" and when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead?), peace will finally ensue.

As for the United States, Barack Obama did see the light but Congress is still the hostage of AIPAC (which won’t let J-Street speak out, because J-Street does want peace and does see the light). Indeed, why would anyone in his right mind support Israel if it wasn’t for the Jewish lobby? Look at Stephen Harper. He dares to be supportive of Israel. According to The Economist, Harper owes the world an explanation for his effrontery ("Mr. Harper himself has never fully explained his partiality," The Economist, May 29th 2010), though The Economist has an explanation: Harper "is pandering to Jewish voters" (after all, there is no Canadian J-Street).

At the turn of the new millennium, The Economist "predicted" that oil would remain cheap and abundant in the coming decades. After oil prices went from $20 a barrel in 2001 to $145 a barrel in 2008, The Economist had to admit that its theory was wrong. But when it comes to the Middle-East, The Economist will never admit its mistakes. You don’t even have to blame the facts. Blaming Israel does the trick better, and it even pleases those Muslim readers who are doing a great job integrating in Europe.

==============================================
This blog is sent to you by www.navon.com either because you subscribed or because I thought you would enjoy reading it. If you no longer want to receive this blog, please click on "unsubscribe" to send an email requesting to be removed. If you need assistance, please contact us by clicking emmanuel@navon.com.

Unsubscribe nurit.nuritg@gmail.com from this list:
http://navon.us1.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=aabae2e175f3579408b9ef9ad&id=1dc23ebf3f&e=ffb3333c37&c=1d82bd3db8

Forward this email to a friend:
http://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=aabae2e175f3579408b9ef9ad&id=1d82bd3db8&e=ffb3333c37

Update your profile:
http://navon.us1.list-manage.com/profile?u=aabae2e175f3579408b9ef9ad&id=1dc23ebf3f&e=ffb3333c37
--------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11iht-edkouchner.html

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor
Averting Another Gaza
By BERNARD KOUCHNER, FRANCO FRATTINI, and MIGUEL ANGEL MORATINOS
Published: June 10, 2010

The whole world was shocked by the tragic consequences of the Israeli military operation conducted in international waters against the “Peace Flotilla” convoy of ships. The human cost is unacceptable. Nothing can justify the use of such violence, and our countries immediately condemned it.

Following these dramatic events, the time must come for analysis and reflection on the root reasons of the tragedy. The cause of the boarding of the Mavi Marmara can be summarized in a single word, one that is very familiar to us: Gaza.

It was Israel’s unbending determination to force compliance with the blockade put in place in 2007 after the coup d’état by Hamas against the Palestinian Authority that is the origin of this event, just as Operation Cast Lead and its trail of intolerable pain were triggered by the constant firing of rockets into southern Israel. Last year, as it did on the night of May 30-31, Israel decided to use force to achieve its political and security objectives.

That logic must now be abandoned, because if it is not, more tragedies will occur that can only strengthen Hamas and Israel’s other enemies in the region, destabilize moderates in both camps and deepen Israel’s political isolation.

How? On June 1 the U.N. Security Council expressed its view, indicating three ways forward that we must follow.

First, the investigation: This is indispensable and it must be impartial, transparent and conform with international standards. It must, however, be sure to avoid the mistakes made after the submission of the Goldstone report, whose follow-up was exploited by the Human Rights Council, half of whose resolutions, unfortunately, have been devoted to condemning Israel.

Turkish and American citizens were the victims of this operation, and the investigation must therefore include an international component, as has already been proposed by the U.N. secretary general. He has our support.

Second, the lifting of the blockade: As early as the first hours after the tragedy, we stressed that the situation in Gaza was no longer sustainable.

In using this expression, also employed by the Security Council the following day, we mean that we must meet the humanitarian needs of Gaza’s population and remove the raison d’être of the mafia-like tunnel economy, but at the same time provide guarantees that this will not go hand in hand with a resurgence in arms trafficking and an influx of terrorist groups into Gaza. This is in fact what Security Council Resolution 1860, adopted following the war in Gaza, stipulates, and the Security Council called a few days ago for it to be implemented in its entirety, not selectively. This includes the immediate release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Concerning the humanitarian aspect, Tony Blair has suggested a shift from a logic of denial of supplies to Gaza to one based on general authorization, with the exception of banned products. Why not adopt this idea to demonstrate very quickly that the situation can improve?

The European Union already has a civilian mission on the spot ready to be deployed simultaneously at the Karni and Rafah frontier posts linking Gaza to Israel and Egypt.

To guarantee full security of supplies, we propose that inspections supported and funded by the E.U. should be put in place there in conditions acceptable to all in order to ensure that consignments bound for Gaza contain neither weapons nor explosives.

A similar regime could be considered for maritime consignments bound for Gaza, for example, by deploying E.U. monitoring teams in Cyprus. These arrangements would be implemented only against a backdrop of very substantial relaxation of the restrictions on imports and exports to and from Gaza.

A lasting solution also implies that the Palestinian Authority should be fully reinstated in Gaza and that a logic of peace should once again prevail in the Gaza territory. Efforts by Egypt in support of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas must still be supported concurrently with the démarche by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

Finally, there is the essential issue: the revival of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This tragedy must not create the conditions for a further escalation of violence either in the Middle East or in Europe, where deep emotion has been aroused. The scale of the international protests proves that Israel enjoys no immunity. How we wish that other tragedies would arouse the same condemnation!

The Palestinian president, who will be in Europe in a few days, has announced that despite everything, the talks will continue. Let us show the same political courage as that demonstrated by the Palestinian leadership. We want those talks to be able to address the final status rapidly.

The E.U., which on Dec. 8 adopted a strong, ambitious text concerning the broad lines of a future settlement, must itself move forward with the parties, in conjunction with U.S. mediation, with a view to the building and recognition of a Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel.

Bernard Kouchner, Franco Frattini and Miguel Angel Moratinos are the foreign ministers, respectively, of France, Italy and Spain.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk