One myth that seems to live on surrounding the Middle East peace process is that as soon as a Palestinian state is finally created, hostilities in the region will end. This argument, of course, serves to bolster the cause for Palestinian statehood -- if peace will result, then let's get about creating that state ASAP.
Take, for example, the following...
The Associated Press, September 16, 2010: "Inconclusive talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas left in doubt the prospects for their new effort to end generations of hostilities in the region and create a sovereign Palestine alongside a secure Israel" [emphasis added].
The Washington Post, August 21, 2010: "President Obama will embark on his deepest foray into Middle East peacemaking...when he hosts Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a bid to achieve what his predecessors could not: a deal to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel and end the two sides' bitter conflict" [emphasis added].
The fact of the matter is that creating a Palestinian state prematurely -- before the vast majority of Palestinians come to care more about their economic well-being and livelihood rather than perpetuating their conflict with Israel -- will result not in peace but in continued war, this time with Palestinians in full control of land and international legitimacy. The Arabs know this; they are just smart enough not to acknowledge it publicly. Westerners, who don't understand the Arabs as well as they should, fail to see the danger in Palestinian statehood and, therefore, keep pushing for it, most times even harder than the Palestinians themselves. The day peace talks renewed in Washington in early September 2010, Palestinians were photographed in the West Bank protesting the talks, which are intended to create their state.
The idea that the moment a peace agreement is signed and a Palestinian state created the Palestinians will transform themselves into peaceful neighbors of Israel is naieve and dangerous. Until there is genuine reform among the Palestinians -- and that may easily take 100 years or more -- no Palestinian state will bring this conflict to an end. It will only make it worse.
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bias. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Palestinian Negotiator Moonlights As Times Headline Editor
The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the New York Times:
September 7, 2010
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
I somehow missed the press release announcing Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath’s appointment as Times headline writer.
“Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks” [September 3, 2010] quotes Shaath as saying, “The climate [in recent talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas] was positive, but the cloud is still there. The Israelis gave absolutely no hopeful signs that they will continue the moratorium [on settlement building].”
Rather than pin the fate of the talks on Israeli policies, the larger mystery and threat is whether the Palestinians now are prepared to make conflict-ending concessions. Netanyahu adviser Zalman Shoval says the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state “more than any other thing is the most tangible obstacle” to peace. In his memoirs released last week, Quartet envoy to the Middle East and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes, “If the Palestinian cause gave up violence emphatically and without ambiguity, there would be a peace agreement within a year.”
Netanyahu says Israel will go “a long way” toward achieving peace – presumably, including concessions on settlements. The real “cloud” is whether Palestinian leaders still lack the courage to prepare their people for decisions required of a final deal. According to a recent poll, only a third of Palestinians see negotiations – vice violence – as the best means to an agreement.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
September 7, 2010
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
I somehow missed the press release announcing Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath’s appointment as Times headline writer.
“Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks” [September 3, 2010] quotes Shaath as saying, “The climate [in recent talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas] was positive, but the cloud is still there. The Israelis gave absolutely no hopeful signs that they will continue the moratorium [on settlement building].”
Rather than pin the fate of the talks on Israeli policies, the larger mystery and threat is whether the Palestinians now are prepared to make conflict-ending concessions. Netanyahu adviser Zalman Shoval says the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state “more than any other thing is the most tangible obstacle” to peace. In his memoirs released last week, Quartet envoy to the Middle East and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes, “If the Palestinian cause gave up violence emphatically and without ambiguity, there would be a peace agreement within a year.”
Netanyahu says Israel will go “a long way” toward achieving peace – presumably, including concessions on settlements. The real “cloud” is whether Palestinian leaders still lack the courage to prepare their people for decisions required of a final deal. According to a recent poll, only a third of Palestinians see negotiations – vice violence – as the best means to an agreement.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Confronting Anti-Israel Delegitimization
The MiddleEastContrarian is all about making suggestions or presenting ideas that others too quickly dismiss as unwise, unnecessary, or some other unflattering adjective and then ultimately have those ideas prove to be right later on.
I found this out the hard way in the summer of 2000 when I wrote a finished intelligence product for the U.S. Department of State that predicted the outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians that September but which never was published because it was deemed too risky and no one wanted to be seen as having approved it if violence didn't pan out.
So, a few weeks ago, I suggested to a very pro-Israel friend of mine that the American pro-Israel community needs a new organization to actively confront the rapidly growing campaign to delegitimize Israel worldwide. Since Israel's detractors cannot defeat it on the battlefield, they have moved the battle to the media, civil society organizations, store shelves (product boycotts), music (artists pressured to cancel concerts), and elsewhere. A few existing organizations confront delegitimization selectively but there is no coordination among them. That's because everyone worries about taking credit themselves so they can use it for fundraising. God forbid you share in a success and a donor gives a share of what he or she would have given you to someone else!
So, this friend of mine basically said, "That's an awful idea. There are plenty of organizations already doing this. Who will fund YOU?"
But the need for a such a single-focused, organized effort now is more apparent than ever. As recently as August 8, Israel's Yediot Achronot newspaper, a major daily, wrote in an editorial that a new organization "must be established that will try to return fire against the process of delegitimization that spans continents and against apathy."
If only the MiddleEastContrarian had the resources to create or support such an organization himself.
I found this out the hard way in the summer of 2000 when I wrote a finished intelligence product for the U.S. Department of State that predicted the outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians that September but which never was published because it was deemed too risky and no one wanted to be seen as having approved it if violence didn't pan out.
So, a few weeks ago, I suggested to a very pro-Israel friend of mine that the American pro-Israel community needs a new organization to actively confront the rapidly growing campaign to delegitimize Israel worldwide. Since Israel's detractors cannot defeat it on the battlefield, they have moved the battle to the media, civil society organizations, store shelves (product boycotts), music (artists pressured to cancel concerts), and elsewhere. A few existing organizations confront delegitimization selectively but there is no coordination among them. That's because everyone worries about taking credit themselves so they can use it for fundraising. God forbid you share in a success and a donor gives a share of what he or she would have given you to someone else!
So, this friend of mine basically said, "That's an awful idea. There are plenty of organizations already doing this. Who will fund YOU?"
But the need for a such a single-focused, organized effort now is more apparent than ever. As recently as August 8, Israel's Yediot Achronot newspaper, a major daily, wrote in an editorial that a new organization "must be established that will try to return fire against the process of delegitimization that spans continents and against apathy."
If only the MiddleEastContrarian had the resources to create or support such an organization himself.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Mossad Made Me Proud
It seems like everyone's been on the Mossad's case in recent days. The world's press is after Israel's secret intelligence service for a successful hit on a leading Hamas terrorist in Dubai in which assassins reportedly used fake British passports to enter the country. The Washington Post has led the campaign to expose any Mossad role and vilify the organization. Amid the criticism, it seems lost that killed was a man responsible for the murder of two Israelis in the 1980s and, more recently, smuggling advanced rockets into Gaza to fire at Israel.
Meanwhile, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports on the many successes achieved by Mossad under the leadership of Meir Dagan, a confidant of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who appointed him to the post in 2002. I had the pleasure of meeting Dagan in Tel Aviv in 2001, months before his appointment. U.S. officials at Embassy Tel Aviv had no appreciation for why I sought the meeting and only reluctantly scheduled it. I knew, however, that Dagan was destined to return to an influential role in the Israeli government. The JTA piece makes clear just how much Israelis -- and the world, for that matter -- ought to be grateful for his leadership of Mossad and how deserving he is of reappointment when his term ends later this year.
Meanwhile, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports on the many successes achieved by Mossad under the leadership of Meir Dagan, a confidant of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who appointed him to the post in 2002. I had the pleasure of meeting Dagan in Tel Aviv in 2001, months before his appointment. U.S. officials at Embassy Tel Aviv had no appreciation for why I sought the meeting and only reluctantly scheduled it. I knew, however, that Dagan was destined to return to an influential role in the Israeli government. The JTA piece makes clear just how much Israelis -- and the world, for that matter -- ought to be grateful for his leadership of Mossad and how deserving he is of reappointment when his term ends later this year.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Reporter Manufacturing Conflict, Again
Howard Schneider of the Washington Post mentions today Israeli plans to renovate two ancient sacred Jewish sites in Hebron and near Bethlehem, in the disputed West Bank. He says the plans may cause Palestinians to question Netanyahu's willingness to see to the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. Of course, Schneider doesn't quote any Palestinians saying this, which means that he is suggesting it only himself -- in other words, making news instead of reporting it. Strike one.
More importantly, the planned renovations have nothing to do with a Palestinian state, as renovating the sites will not involve land confiscation. Is Schneider, then, suggesting that renovation is counterproductive because the sites -- thousands of years old -- would be demolished upon creation of a Palestinian state? Removing the sites would be outrageous. They should remain and be protected -- by Jews -- regardless of the eventual disposition of the land they sit on. Moreover, the Palestinians ought to be respectful of the sacredness of those sites and welcome the renovations, just as Israel respects the integrity and sovereignty of Muslim sites on land it controls.
Schneider's suggestion of a conflict shows, again, that he always seeks to manufacture excuses to blame Israel for creating friction and trouble. Worse yet, his insistence on doing so is completed unchecked by his editors.
More importantly, the planned renovations have nothing to do with a Palestinian state, as renovating the sites will not involve land confiscation. Is Schneider, then, suggesting that renovation is counterproductive because the sites -- thousands of years old -- would be demolished upon creation of a Palestinian state? Removing the sites would be outrageous. They should remain and be protected -- by Jews -- regardless of the eventual disposition of the land they sit on. Moreover, the Palestinians ought to be respectful of the sacredness of those sites and welcome the renovations, just as Israel respects the integrity and sovereignty of Muslim sites on land it controls.
Schneider's suggestion of a conflict shows, again, that he always seeks to manufacture excuses to blame Israel for creating friction and trouble. Worse yet, his insistence on doing so is completed unchecked by his editors.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Israeli Tree-Planting...in Palestine
The international media always enjoys portraying the "undue" hardships Israel imposes on Palestinian life -- from the security checkpoints it sets up near West Bank cities to prevent Palestinian terrorist travel to demolishing the homes of suicide bombers to deter others from following their example.
Here's quite a different tale only reported in the Israeli and Jewish press:
In November, employees of Israel's Jewish National Fund, including Arab citizens of Israel, helped Palestinians plant 3,000 trees near the site of a planned, new Palestinian city on the West Bank. Says Suhil Zaydan, a foresty manager for the JNF: "We contributed with our know-how, by advising on how to prepare the ground for the planting and how public gardens should be planned, as well as the best times for planting, and what kinds of trees it is preferable to plant. We did not talk about politics and we shall not talk about it."
The JNF's actions illustrate exceptionally commendable goodwill toward Israel's Palestinian neighbors.
Here's quite a different tale only reported in the Israeli and Jewish press:
In November, employees of Israel's Jewish National Fund, including Arab citizens of Israel, helped Palestinians plant 3,000 trees near the site of a planned, new Palestinian city on the West Bank. Says Suhil Zaydan, a foresty manager for the JNF: "We contributed with our know-how, by advising on how to prepare the ground for the planting and how public gardens should be planned, as well as the best times for planting, and what kinds of trees it is preferable to plant. We did not talk about politics and we shall not talk about it."
The JNF's actions illustrate exceptionally commendable goodwill toward Israel's Palestinian neighbors.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
AP Misunderstands Bush Palestine Policy
AP reporter Jennifer Loven, reporting from Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, where President Bush is meeting Arab leaders after visiting Israel, said that, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset the other day marking Israel's 60th birthday, Bush barely mentioned the Palestinians' plight and foresaw a Palestinian state only in 2068. She then quotes several Arab leaders and officials sharply criticizing the speech.
In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."
With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.
In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."
With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Press Asking Wrong Questions on Syria
At a press conference on the White House lawn on Tuesday, the President was asked repeatedly why his Administration had waited so long to deliver a full intelligence briefing to Capitol Hill about last September's Israeli air strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility. According to US and Israeli intelligence, the facility was constructed with the help of North Korea and most likely would have begun shortly to process nuclear fuel, possibly weapons-grade.
The press were allowing Syria, and North Korea, off the hook by diverting the crux of the issue. The real news is not why the White House rightfully judged it in our, and Israel's, national security interest to delay a full briefing. The real story -- the story with the dire consequences -- is why Syria, despite its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, "concealed the very existence as well as the purpose of the installation and repeatedly denied the facts to the world and to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]," as an Israeli analyst put it. The Washington Post agreed, adding that Syria was suspiciously quick to demolish and bury the nuclear reactor's remains, actions which the Post said "require explanation."
Members of the media, then, should be pressing the Syrians, not President Bush, for answers and explanations. Trying to create tension and conflict between the White House and Congress reflects poorly on their responsibility to cover the real news.
The press were allowing Syria, and North Korea, off the hook by diverting the crux of the issue. The real news is not why the White House rightfully judged it in our, and Israel's, national security interest to delay a full briefing. The real story -- the story with the dire consequences -- is why Syria, despite its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, "concealed the very existence as well as the purpose of the installation and repeatedly denied the facts to the world and to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]," as an Israeli analyst put it. The Washington Post agreed, adding that Syria was suspiciously quick to demolish and bury the nuclear reactor's remains, actions which the Post said "require explanation."
Members of the media, then, should be pressing the Syrians, not President Bush, for answers and explanations. Trying to create tension and conflict between the White House and Congress reflects poorly on their responsibility to cover the real news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
