The Middle East Policy Twilight Zone: Four Examples
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/12/02/the-middle-east-policy-twilight-zone-four-examples/
The Middle East Policy Twilight Zone: Four Examples
You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the Twilight Zone. —Rod Serling
By Barry Rubin
Ah, the gap between Middle East reality and official U.S. government-approved reality. Here are four examples:
–“Here is the next challenge for the citizen movements that are advancing from Tunisia to Syria — and eventually, surely, to repressive non-Arab states such as Iran and China. Once they have toppled the secret police, the revolutionaries need to draft constitutions affirming the rights of the individual.” –David Ignatius, Washington Post
Yes, on the way to the Middle East utopia do stop off and adopt a Bill of Rights. It made such a nice adornment to the Soviet Constitution. Who says the secret police have been toppled? Any really democratic state will need them to deal with Salafist terrorists, while the Islamist-ruled regimes to come will need them to suppress democrats, secularists, Christians, feminists, and those who will be called Zionist and imperialist agents.
How much faith these people have in elections! One balloting won by anti-democratic forces and you’re home free.
–“There are many ways the Arab Awakening might veer off track, and religion-inspired constriction of freedom is one. But so far in Egypt, the greatest threat to democracy has come from the military rulers. In any true Arab democracy, Islamist parties will win a lot of votes. As long as they are willing to play by the rules, those parties should not be treated as a specter to be feared.” –Editorial, Washington Post
Here’s an interesting question. Other than the arrest of some bloggers and moderates who have been accused of criticizing the army and also the army’s terrible behavior toward the Christian demonstration at Maspero in which about 30 were killed, where’s this big threat to democracy from the military?
Yes, the Egyptian military proposed moving back presidential elections to 2013 but when challenged they returned to a June 2012 date within hours. They never stopped or interfered with the parliamentary elections. Parties ranging from Communists to Salafists were able to organize and propagandize without interference.
In fact, the big threat to Egypt right now is anarchy, including the security forces standing by and letting mobs attack Christians and also a massive crime wave. There has never been any serious reason to believe the military didn’t intend to yield power. It doesn’t want political power, just economic wealth.
What we have here then is a knee-jerk reaction. They’re soldiers so they must be against democracy. But Egypt today isn’t South America in the 1970s.
And of course focusing on the military obscures the real threat to democracy, the Islamists. It is easy to “play by the rules” when all you have to do is win an election by a landslide. And in the future it will be easy for the Islamists to “play by the rules” because they will be making the rules.
– “President Barack Obama defended his policy toward Israel at a political fundraiser on Wednesday, saying that Israel was the U.S.’s most important ally. … `I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,’ Obama said. `We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security … and that will continue.’” -Reuters
Don’t ever say that Obama isn’t unique as president. Who else would not just have such a giant ego but display it publicly by saying that he tries not to praise himself too much. As for the claim that the Obama Administration has done more for Israel than any previous administration, a decent mass media would expose that to ridicule. And I’m not saying that direct military relations haven’t been good. It’s just everything else.
So what are some of the compromises?
Installing antisemitic, genocidal-minded regimes in Egypt and Libya, helping to do so in Tunisia.
Whitewashing and going soft on Syria for three years followed by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to lead the opposition.
Not lifting a finger as Turkey’s regime daily bashes Israel, uses terrorist surrogates to create a major international incident, virtually threatens war with Israel, etc.
You can add more examples.
–”Despite great odds, the elections this week drew millions to the polls. They are proof of how much Egyptians yearn for democracy….But the long years of political suppression — and the way the military tipped the field in the Brotherhood’s favor — also make it hard to figure out what these early results say about the country’s thinking or its future… What should be clear to the Brotherhood, which, on Thursday, denied any plans to form an alliance with the Salafis, is that most Egyptians have no interest in swapping Mubarak’s secular dictatorship for a religious one. –New York Times editorial
Are you nuts?
A. The Egyptians might not “yearn for democracy” but merely want to choose their dictator. Democracy is not just elections. Remember that these voters have chosen in favor of murdering anyone who converts from Islam and a long list of other rather undemocratic things.
B. The military “tipped the field” in the Brotherhood’s direction. Are you joking? The moderates demanded quick elections every day. They got them. The fact that they didn’t do better was their own fault. Maybe they should get a participation trophy. How did the military favor the Brotherhood in the November 28-29 elections? It didn’t.
C. “Hard to figure out what these early results say about the country’s thinking or its future”? I don’t think it’s hard at all. (If you know who Sam Kinnison was imagine me yelling this as loud as possible: THEY WANT A SHARIA STATE, YOU DOPES! Hard to figure out, indeed!
D. “Denied any plans to form an alliance”? Well, that means they won’t form a coalition government with them as that would give away their game of pretending to be moderate. But of course they will ally with them in writing an Islamist constitution and passing specific laws to implement their vision.
E “Most Egyptians have no interest in swapping Mubarak’s secular dictatorship for a religious one.” Really? Well they have a strange way of showing it then, don’t they? If that’s what they wanted why did they vote for the Islamists? Face it, they do want a religious dictatorship but it will be based on one specific democratic principle: majority support.
Middle East dictatorships have almost always enjoyed majority support. Wield the card of Islam or nationalism, and to some extent both; demonize Israel and the West; promise everything at no cost, mix well, heat in the fires of passion, and you’ve got a populist dictatorship, my friends.
Dr. Rubin. Islam is the problem. Until Islam has another narrative, it will remain the problem, whether dormant as before WWII or active as now, it will always be a problem.
We can fight them politically and militarily forever. Israel certainly knows about that. OR…
We can offer a new narrative. It is well known that Islam was hijacked early on. Where are the stories in the media describing the differences between Islam al Mecca and Islam al Medina?
Excelsior
That’s not going to work. Mohammad was in charge in both Mecca and Medina.
And unfortunately it was when Mohammad called for peace and then changed his mind that he called the peaceful verses “the Satanic verses” and said he’d been fooled by Satan.
Josh, you are missing the point. An alternative narrative is just that, alternative. Mohamed was killed on the road from Mecca to Medina and replaced by a priest of the Arabic Moon Goddess Allah, who kluugged up the works.
Agiprop, my man, agiprop.
(PS I have elaborated on the story previously)
You want to create a new cult?
Oh god, even in the astronomical chance that could work, it would just be a bloodbath as Muslims killed the new heretics.
There’s nothing to be done. Islam can not moderate, we must support the people who deal with Islam by forgetting Islam.
So, we quit. OK, I understand your point. Surrender is better than any effort. Sounds very OWS to me.
Since I am old, and you are inheriting, good luck with that.
ta
Ali Salem (the Egyptian democracy activist – a man so courageous he’s been advocating normalization with Israel for decades)… Ali Salem once told an interviewer (this is from memory, the original article disappeared off the web almost a decade ago) “Islam can not moderate, it can never become moderate. Instead it will be forgotten.”
I defer to his wisdom.
Mr Hoskins,
You are quite right. It is obvious to all who understand the chronology of M’s life that al-Shaytan corrupted him, as he had failed to corrupt Jesus. The liberal seeks a reformed Islam – let him advocate an Islamic narrative of the cautionary tale. The decent Muslim seeks a way out of or for his otherwise doomed religion – let him propagate it also. For soon we shall inform the Mahdi and his Caliph that it must have been so.
Ad Yathrib
I tend to give up on authors and stop reading as soon as I hit thoroughly dishonest hyperbole.
For instance, can anyone defend the word “installing” in the phrase “Installing antisemitic, genocidal-minded regimes in Egypt and Libya, helping to do so in Tunisia.”
Anyone?
What were we SUPPOSED to have done about Tunisia for example? Bomb the demonstrators? Encourage the regime to use more violence to quell a very popular revolt? THAT wouldn’t have an blowback would it?
Libya is the only one in that list where the word “installing” has any truth to it.. and hey, why dont you look up Gidaffe’s massacres now.
Rubin using the most forceful blaming words because he’s trying to distract you from the fact that he’s calling for the US to crush the middle east with an iron boot. Let’s just kill all the liberals! For Rubin! since he works in Israel he’s really the only example I can think of of someone who lives up the the antisemitic stereotype of someone demanding that the US crush the Arabs for Israel.
He’s not doing Israel any good.
I agree with the first part of your comment, and disagree with the second part.
The US didn’t install the MB in Egypt (nor did it install Mubarak like some of the left claimed). Obama did invite MB people to his Cairo speech, thereby undermining Mubarak. He did demand pretty quickly and forcefully that Mubarak step down, while not showing the same degree of enthusiasm re Iran and Syria. When asked about a possible role of the MB in post-revolution Egypt, the Obamadmin said it’s OK with it. But that certainly doesn’t amount to installing. The only ones doing the installing are the Egyptians themselves.
The rest of your comment is a whole lot of rubbish. Indeed, it does seem Rubin is getting increasingly frustrated and angry due to the fact he’s been trying to warn for a long time about the looming catastrophe in the hope of averting or mitigating it, but finds himself banging his head against a wall.
Westerners are incredibly difficult customers. You will only learn the hard way. And by hard way I don’t mean Barry Rubin futilely “screaming” and waving his fists in the air with frustration. Rubin is not the real threat to you. But you will only learn from your own experience who and what is the real threat, and that’ll take a lot of time. I’ve already come to accept it. Rubin apparenty still feels that if only he’ll explain once more, if only he’ll shout louder, if only he’ll find the right image, if only he’ll find a way to shock, if only this or only that, he will succeed in cracking the wall. But he won’t. Westerners will only learn from their own experience. It took 9/11 for some Westerners to start considering there might be a problem. And it will take a lot more for it to travel up to the dense elites. And there’s nothing Rubin can do about it, and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. So yes, people will die and suffer, but if there’s nothing you can do about it there’s no point in getting yourself all worked out, it’ll just break you and wear you down. Of course, he can continue writing about it, but just adopt a more stoic attitude. But that can only come when you understand that you can’t make a difference and come to terms with it.
Excuse me, we’re not difficult, we’re just not Russia. We’re not going to bomb the demonstrators into rubble. We don’t do Grosny/2000, Czechoslovakia/68, Hama/82
It’s not our place to prevent elections or popular uprisings, the blowback for setting ourselves against the people of a country would destroy our reputation, would destroy the international system, would destroy our place in the world.
..So exactly what sort of oppression is Rubin demanding the US foment in order to prevent elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Oh right we know about Libya, we were supposed to approve of Gaddafi using gun ships to strafe peaceful demonstrators. That’s his idea of America living up to its ideals.
You’re still talking rubbish. Nobody said you should shoot or suppress anyone. Westerners are difficult because you refuse to acknowledge lots of basic facts that don’t fit into your ideological framework.
Let’s start from a simple question. Should a president of the US invite Mulsim Brotherhood people to attend his speech (or allow them to be invited to his speech according to a “softer” version), thereby giving them recognition and encouragement?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/06/-brotherhood-invited-to-obama-speech-by-us/18693/
hxxp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/03/muslim-brotherhood-members-attend-obamas-cairo-speech/
Pros:
1. Egypt was a dicatatorship and the Bros were part of the opposition, and the biggest part at that.
But is this really ancouraging democracy?
Cons:
1. The Bros are not an authentic democratic player. They may use democracy as an instrument while it serves them – to gain power, to consolidate their power. They might play by the rules as long as they’re not strong enough. But democracy isn’t an inherent part of the Islamist ideology and program like it is an inherent part of the liberal democratic ideology (including conservative Republicans), because their goal is a sharia state and democracy contradicts sharia. So does encouraging the MB against the current dictator serve democracy or hinder it?
2. The Bros are bad for American interests because they hate the West in general and the US in particular and want to drive Western influence out of the region.
3. The Bros have a genocidal antisemitic ideology, a fusion of their interpretation of Islam and Nazi antisemitism (it goes back to their collaboration with the Nazis). And they want to destroy Israel, which is a close American ally. Their biggest spiritual leader, Yusouf al Qaradawi, said Hitler was sent by Allah to punish the Jews, and hopefully next time will be at the hands of the Muslims. Should the president of the US invite such people to his speech? Would an American president invite European neo-Nazis to his speech?
4. While the fate of Israel and the Jews might not matter to you, stability in the Middle East is an American interest. Most importantly, it secures the oil flow, not just to the US, but to many important American allies in Europe and Asia that don’t have their own oil to drill. Egypt, as one of the two most important Arab states, was the cornerstone of this stability, mainly due to its peace agreement with Israel. Is it wise, then, for your own interests to encourage a movement that will destabilize the region?
5. Mubarak himself was an American ally. Contacts with his opposition undermined him. That might have been worth it if this opposition was a liberal democratic opposition, but the Bros inherently aren’t. So what message does that send to your other allies? What message does it send to your enemies that you want to appease? Why would anyone trust you if you backstab your allies for a worse alternative than they were?
Note that my question is not about bombing protesters. My question is about inviting the Brotherhood to a speech by the POTUS. The question is not about what to do, but about what not to do. Sometimes a good policy is to avoid doing some things.
That speech had me facepalming. I remember talking to a man in Cairo about it.
Look it was not the best speech, though only part of it was bad. Though frankly, the bad parts were stuff you could have heard from any democratic candidate during the election. It was not nearly as bad as it could have been. Imagine if Kerry had been there
Anyway I complained about that speech in depth at the time.
But it was also right at the beginning of his presidency, long before the Arab spring, in a totally different situation.
But to be fair, to stretch an invitation to one of his first speeches into support for the Muslim Brotherhood in this election like you have is actually mad.
or allow them to be invited to his speech according to a “softer” version
So not only is your example something irrelevant that was long before the Arab spring, let alone the fall of Mubarak, but you’re not even sure it happened. You sure spent one hell of a lot of words on an astonishingly weak point.
Gee, that was only one incident, not the whole story (and certainly not what Barry Rubin is complaining about). The point of it was not to “prove” Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but to counter your straw man argument that anyone is urging the US to bomb protesters. The point is that sometimes a good policy is to avoid certain things. For instance, not invite the Muslim Brotherhood to your speech, not rush into throwing Mubarak out, but maybe offer a serious alternative of orderly transformation, backed by other international actors, which would at least give the more moderate forces some time to organize better, advice and even pressure the more moderate forces to unite, rather than create many small parties, so they could create a more powerful counter-balance, not jump into saying the Muslim Brotherhood is acceptable as anyone else in the political future of Egypt, they could also pressure others within Egypt (that would care about losing the American aid) to distance themselves from the Brotherhood and try to decrease its power, and maybe delay the elections, which would give more time to the moderates to organize. So there are things the US could do and/or AVOID doing thar might have an effect if the American administration thought the election of the Brotherhood was very undesirable. That might not have prevented their election, but it might have reduce their power to some degree and strengthen the moderates to some degree, so there would be a better balance. But a president who believes having the Brothers attend his speech is a good idea won’t think having them at the helmet is a bad idea. (And he did invite them. The other version was an ad-hoc coverup after the invitation got him a lot of fire from conservatives, but even if it was true, another president would have instructed that no invitations would be sent to the Brotherhood. It’s no accident that the Brotherhood didn’t show up to speeches by other presidents – they were not invited. To invite them was to spit in the face of Mubarak.)
I agree: using the word “installing” in this sense is over the top. And can anyone imagine Sam Kinnison saying this: “They already had a sharia state and have had for decades.” And what good does it do to warn people about the MB if “installing” is not an option. The Egyptians are going to do what they’re going to do: knowing about it in advance won’t change a thing. And when all the predicting is negative and ignores anything that mitigates that negative image in the least way, there is no credibility remaining but just echoes from a choir hall. A pragmatic rationalist is like an umpire: they call ‘em like they see them. When it comes to Egypt, it’s all strikes, or in this case, “Wolf!” Sure, Islam shoots itself in the foot all the time, “predicting” that isn’t exactly going out on a limb, especially when Western values are spread over the region like peanut butter.
What iron boot pray?
The iron boot that’s being booted out of Iraq
the Iron Boot that’s being kicked out of AfPaq
The iron Boot that will be kicked out of Bahrain?
The iron Boot that was ignominously kicked out of Lebanon 1982, Somalia 1993, Vietnam 1975?
The only time the US employed real power was on Belgrade, a Christian city with no air-defense. 78 days of bombing a defenseless city, what courage.
Ergo Rubin doesnt expect the USA to employ the power it does not have, or which has been defeated repeatedly
All he asks for is to leave ISrael alone so the Jews CAN DEAL WITH THE THREATS TO THEIR EXISTENCE. No American power, or money please
Secondly he would like the Administration to shut up and stop spewing idiotic certaintisms with such unabashed bravado
Third he would like America to keep its funds at home and stop financing the Islmo-Nazis such as Hamas, the brotherhood etc..
Is keeping your moeny at home for needy American children too much to ask for?
“We can fight them politically and militarily forever. Israel certainly knows about that. OR…
We can offer a new narrative. It is well known that Islam was hijacked early on.”
The only problem with a “new narrative” is that there has to be some acknowledgement that this will work. Unfortunately, experience with Islamist regimes proves that it won’t work. Islamist regimes are interested in only one thing, power, and expansion to other countries more Islamist regimes.
Recall that the threat to the Mullah’s in 1980 of the Reagan Administration is what freed the hostages, not any new narrative.
So, let’s just not try…just give up and live with this crap forever?
The effort, a low cost effort at that, will inform us about other options as a minimum…or it could just work.
My two years in the region lead me to believe it will work better than you could even imagine.
Re Obama’s claim to have done more for Israel’s security than any other previous administration: If Obama has done more, it is as a pygmy standing on the shoulders of giants. He is merely not attempting to meddle with the implementation of US-Israel security cooperation arrangements established by his predecessors — in effect, voting “Present” on Israel’s security. It also helps a bunch that the budgeted amounts supposedly flowing from the US to Israel as military aid actually end up flowing right back into the US due to Israeli acquisitions of US-produced weaponry and materiel. Bottom line, therefore, is that this arrangement helps sustain US jobs — so again there is no sense in Obama doing anything other than (in effect) voting “Present” on this arrangement and claiming the credit in front of the Jack Rosens and Alan Solomonts of the macher world.
I think it’s funny that Rubin is attacking the administration for not helping the Syrian revolution but attacking it for not preventing the Tunsian, Egyptian and helping the Libyan ones.
So after a Syrian one completes, he’ll attack the administration for not having done more to help Bashar al-Assad.
Also “Whitewashing and going soft on Syria for three years followed by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to lead the opposition.”
Hey Barry, support your claims for once.
Anyone SUPPORT THIS.. Prove that the administration supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Give us a quote. Come on.. is this propaganda or truth? I say propaganda. Barry has made infinite claims like this about the administration somehow secretly supporting every evil in country in the middle east. He hasn’t supported a single one. This is just another way to fool you with a conspiracy theory, to claim support that there is no evidence for. The implication is that Obama controls everything that happens in the middle east.
You know, the usual conspiracy theory.
So go on, if there’s any truth, support it, or otherwise admit that Barry has been lying all along.
Read back. You can start with this:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/11/syria-no-longer-revolution-it-is-civil.html
But I’m not going to search for you because I have no time for that. Rubin writes several posts a week and often refers to things he wrote or established in the past. It’ll be unfair to regular readers if he’ll repeat all the information and arguments again and again in every post he writes about every subject or whenever he mentions something.
As is usual for Rubin there is a ton of hand waving “the fact that the US supports” and a lot of begging the jury* but no quotes by officials, no list of specific actions done, no specification whatsoever of what “support” means.
*If the SNC meets in Turkey with any contact with an American ambassador or something that is called “The SNC has an advantage because it was assembled by the United States using the Islamist regime in Turkey”. Emphasis on “the US USING Turkey” and Turkey being “the Islamist regime in Turkey”. Once again no specification whatsoever of what he means by any of this.
Organized by the Americans or just observed at some point? Organized by Turkish diplomats in official capability? Just using a meeting place in Turkey? Organized by the ruling party of Turkey? Nothing is specified, no quotes given, no details. Nothing.
If this is what his employer puts out, I am so unimpressed. This is hand-waving, closer to polemics than to news.
I am so sick of hand waving. I’ve lost my trust in this author, I want to see evidence. When he says something I want to see it supported by facts that I can verify.
or even enough facts that I know what all the hand waving and exagguration really refers to. What it actually MEANS.
I have come to the conclusion, having seen no examples of his accusatory rhetoric being really supported by facts that with Barry Rubin, there is no there there.
I’m not saying that I believe he’s wrong, I’m saying I require a lot more information than just knowing that whatever Barry Rubin knows but doesn’t tell us makes him foam at the mouth.
I want to know the details so I can judge for myself.
Hey, you seem more agitated than he is
Why don’t you search for information? You don’t have to trust Rubin, you don’t have to read what he writes, nobody’s forcing you. You can read the New York Times. Or you can search the site or use Google. Or Bing, if you prefer.
I think I have a right to know if he’s being fair or not.
If he has all this information, why doesn’t he share it with us?
Sorry that was supposed to read “Barry has made infinite claims like this about the administration somehow secretly supporting every evil in every country in the middle east.”
Give Barry Rubin’s credit for undertaking the thankless task of casting light on the depth of our ignorance about the ways of the Middle East. This article does more to illuminate the exotic quandaries than indicting anyone in particular.
Errors of projection are the easiest ones to mislead oneself with. We arrived at “democratic” practices and institutions through a long and arduous process, the outcome of which was in many ways improbable, if not miraculous. So, we get it wrong right out of the gate, as if mesmerized by a mindless game of word association: What comes to your mind when you hear the word “elections”? In this kind of game the only good answers are the quick ones, and we easily fall in the trap of the reflexive answer: “democracy!”.
Even without much specific knowledge about the Middle East, we should start by recognizing that even the laws of probability are against the happenstance of “democracy”, and if by some felicitous process democracy obtains, its permanence is precarious at best. Moreover, the Middle East is not in the habit of having citizens, but rather subjects. Only the top bullies call the shots, and keep doing whatever bullies do to play for keeps. If we insist on expecting democracy because something called “elections” happens, we did not learn anything from Hamas in Gaza, did we? What did they do with the opposition? They smashed it, as per a longstanding tradition, over which we don’t have much influence, do we?
The only thing I learned from the elections in Gaza is that Hamas took over Gaza. No, I’m not going to spread that paradigm over Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.
What I think is being missed here and even wilfully ignored is that Muslims are Muslims. You think maybe they’ll usher in Judeo-Christian values? Even if the secular/civil parties had 2/3 of the vote sharia almost certainly would remain in the Egyptian constitution in some form. The idea that secularists exist in any numbers anywhere in the middle east that want gay pride parades and equal rights for Buddhists is not persuasive. These are not Jeffersonians. They want freedom but that doesn’t mean a separation of religion and state.
That is the one elephant Islam doesn’t share with the West and it’s tempting to think it is the main source of their inability to innovate and compete with the West but I think the Third World is just the Third World. You can slap Thomas Jefferson all over the middle east and they won’t suddenly put space stations in orbit.
Malaysia, a strict Islamic state, may be the most tech-happy Islamic state: color that assembling parts not invented or created in Malaysia. To me the greatest lesson to be learned from the Arab Spring is to stop letting them emigrate to America.
One thing you can be sure about Barry Rubin is that he never misses an opportunity to be on the wrong side of history. He never admitted how wrong he was about Iraq war and that a SCHOLAR should not have been in the business advocating wholesale destruction on innocent people. So, Rubin should drop this facade of scholarship and admit that he is a part of the propaganda machine for the Likud. With that in mind lets check out the validity of his claims one by one.
Installing antisemitic, genocidal-minded regimes in Egypt and Libya, helping to do so in Tunisia.”
Genocidal-minded regimes are the hardest ones to INSTALL. My guess is that they were short of corrupt-minded regime manuals in the state department.
Whitewashing and going soft on Syria for three years followed by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to lead the opposition.
Yeah, US should have bombed Syria for three years, followed by supporting the Druze to lead the government. That was the smart move if only Obama asked Likud.
Not lifting a finger as Turkey’s regime daily bashes Israel, uses terrorist surrogates to create a major international incident, virtually threatens war with Israel, etc.
Absolutely, how dare those unarmed terrorists to put themselves at point blank range of the assault weapons of IDF soldiers in international waters? Would not they know better that IDF owns the high seas? And this becomes all the more important when Israeli foreign minister advocates that his government use Turkish NGOs like PKK to foster better understanding between two peoples. Obama should definitely commend this policy of Israel.
mstr, you ignore two critical concepts, the consequence of which results in comments like yours:
1) The use of the “Palestinian” myth (which has arisen since 1964, no earlier) is a tired and well-worn tactic used by Arab/Muslim regimes to distract their own populations and create anti-Israel bias and confusion among so-called “humanists” worldwide.
2)To ignore INTENT behind the actions of anti-Israel forces and Israel itself is to completely ignore the humanistic philosophy of civilization’s moral codes which have evolved since ancient times. Considering intent, on the other hand, clarifies the whole mess by exposing the Big Lie for what it is (Islamic holy war aided by the misguided Western left), and in the vast majority of cases, exonerates Israel. Israel is the defender in this conflict, not the belligerent. The correct conclusion naturally follows – from a humanistic view, Israel has the moral high ground.
Obama condemns the transparent and democratic system of Israel for passing laws he doesn’t like only to turn around and endorse fascism in the Arab world because it condemns Israel. You do the math.