The Pernicious BBC

This evening, November 17th 2012, the top story on the BBC's news website is about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The story itself is annodyne. The noteworthy thing is the series of six images which adorn the top section of the webpage. Since it will probably be taken down later this evening or tomorrow at the latest, I've recorded it.

Picture number one: an Iron Dome rocket streaking into the skies:

The second picture is of the reason Iron Dome is in action: Missiles being shot from the middle of a residential area in Gaza.

The next photo is of a large explosion in the middle of the city of Gaza.

The next picture is of a damaged building, it could be on either side:

Next comes a picture of massing IDF tanks. Threatening.

So far, so good. Each of these images was probably taken yesterday or today. I'm not confident all the readers of the BBS website will be able to identify each of the pictures, and I haven't seen any mention on the website of how even the BBC is documenting the Hamas war crime of shooting from residential areas, but at least they're putting the images out there and we can use them. The final picture, however, wasn't taken today, and isn't part of the story, since at the moemnt there is no physical contact between the IDF and the population of Gaza. So it was inserted not to show us the news - since it's not news - but for some other reason completely. On the immediate level, it serves to balance the picture of the IDF tanks; on a more fundamental level, it offers an image to frame the entire conflict.

(Goliath, as history would have it, came from the vicinity of Gaza. And he's entered Western culture through a book written by Jews).

One Gaza Picture is Worth Which 1,000 Words?

Here's a powerful AP picture from Gaza, yesterday afternoon:

Now the question is, which 1,000 words does it replace? When we look at the picture, who are we seeing? Since it clearly depicts an act of violence, who shoud we recoil from, and who should we identify with?

Is it a picture of evil Israeli aggression against the helpless civilian population of Gaza, who are under attack and can't defend themselves? Or is it perhaps a picture of the cynical strongmen who control Gaza, and store their long-range Fajr misslies in the middle of a residential neighborhood, so that if Israel ever tries to destroy them, this will be the resulting picture?

Both interpretations can't be simultaneously true. Yet the picture, in spite of its powerful image, is quite useless in giving us a thousand words of context or even simply of clarification.

Gender Separation on Public Transit

Chances are, if you read this blog you're something of a news junkie, with a focus on Israel. In which case you'll most likely have heard all about how Jim Crow is coming to Israel, as demonstrated by the Black Buses on which Haredi men sit up front, and Haredi women are segregated to the back. Of course, the Supreme Court has ruled against the practice, twice - which shows that the problem isn't about to go away, since some sections of the Haredi community feel it's important, and no court can force men and women to sit together if they choose to sit apart.

I've got no words of defense for the practice. Nor do I buy into any of the chatter about how it's a reflection of a tradition and needs to be preserved or respected or that sort of thing. It isn't. It's a brand new invention of people who are too engaged in fending off modernity to notice they've gone off the cliff, and it's a sad story about how a fervent minority can dictate to the surrounding majority: so far as I understand it, the innovation comes from the Gur Hassids, and the rest of the Haredi community is being swept along becuase they don't care enough to resist.

Still, I was interested to learn, the other day, that in Egypt they've got special compartments in the subway for women only, because women traveling in normal compartments are routinely harassed, and the authorities felt it better to segregate the women than to convince the men to respect them. I don't think I'd heard this before, in spite of all the reports about how great Egypt is about to be.   

Dwindling Room for Optimism

Wherever I went in Germany, people assumed I joined them in welcoming the new democracy and freedom in the Arab world. In each case, I had to explain that I hoped for the best, but saw no particular reason to expect it. Now the New York Times has begun to backtrack:

The revolutions and revolts in the Arab world, playing out over just a few months across two continents, have proved so inspirational to so many because they offer a new sense of national identity built on the idea of citizenship.
But in the past weeks, the specter of divisions — religion in Egypt, fundamentalism in Tunisia, sect in Syria and Bahrain, clan in Libya — has threatened uprisings that once seemed to promise to resolve questions that have vexed the Arab world since the colonialism era. 

Actually, the specter of divisions and other bothersome matters were there all the time, of course. So there's nothing happening so far which is particularly surprising, and certainly nothing that couldn't have been foreseen at the height of the popular demonstrations. This isn't to say that the revolutions were always doomed to fail, nor that they're now certain to fail. Rather, anyone with a modest sense of history and human nature should never have been carried away in the first place, has little to be surprised about now, and should hope for a positive outcome. In any case, there's precious little any outsiders can do.

Zipper: The Egyptian Revolution will End Badly, Soon

Benny Zipper is a veteran member of Haaretz' stable of light-weight lefties. I don't think I've ever linked to him, because there wasn't much point. Well, there's always sometimes a first time. Zipper is in Cairo right now, seeing things just as you'd expect any mainstream Israeli septic would, but not Haaretz folk or their Western look-alikes:

Tahrir Square still attracts curious crowds on weekends and holidays, including families there to gaze at the last remnants of the naive and romantic two-month-old popular uprising, which also photographed wonderfully in pictures broadcast around the world. However, now the backyards behind the smiling facades are being canvassed assiduously, and the seed of the political toughness is being sown that - though I do hope I am wrong - will bring about the second, real revolution, and will wipe the smiles off many faces.

Even more oddly, he blames Obama, which probably isn't fair, though I suppose one might explain Obama's rise to the same cultural malaise.

An Important Journalist Talks Through His Hat

David Ignatius is an important journalist who's been around a long time and is regarded as reliable. He's been talking to prominent Egyptians, and has a column about three he thinks will come out on or near the top. Amr Moussa and Mohammed el-Baradei are no-brainers if you're an external observer who couldn't name five Egyptians without a spot of Googling. (And I have no idea if the Egyptian voters will agree that they're so important, or if this is a Western conceit). It's interesting to note that the three men seem significantly more wary of the Muslim Brotherhood than most of the Western media is.

The reason I'm interrupting my non-blogging to call attention to the Ignatius column, however, has to do with Naquib Sawiris, the third Egyptian power-broker he chooses to introduce to us.

...Naguib Sawiris, the chief executive of Orascom, a giant telecommunications company that is Egypt’s biggest private employer. Egyptian analysts describe the first two as potential future presidents and the third as a possible kingmaker. (Sawiris, a Coptic Christian, wouldn’t have a chance in a presidential bid, but he has just formed a powerful new political party.)

Is there any conceivable way Ignatius can know that Sawiris' new political party is powerful? There isn't is there? Normally, the power of political parties is measured first and foremost by results of elections, and that hasn't happened yet in Egypt. I suppose one might try to gauge such power by counting membership or some other form of secondary measurement, perhaps the power of political patronage - but Sawiris' party didn't exist a month ago, so that can't be it. Note also that we're not told what the name of the party is, which may somewhat hamper our ability to watch it as it rises or not.

How very puzzling.

Can the New York Times Count till Ten?

If you read this correspondence between Isable Kershner (NYT) and Lenny Ben David, the answer seems to be: No, the NYT isn't good at counting up to ten.

Independent Palestine in September 2011: Does it Make Any Difference?

The New York Times seems to think it does, and that the possibility of a UN recognition of an independent Palestine in September this year will dramatically change the dynamics of the conflict. As anyone who frequents this blog knows, the fact that the NYT is convinced of anything doesn't much impress me, as doesn't the fact that they've dug up various Israelis to bolster their thesis. So far I haven't much written about this matter, since I'm still trying to figure out what it means, but if anyone wishes to pitch in with informed insights, be my guest.

Ideologically Conditioned not to See Jews

Reuters reporting on last week's terrorist attack on civilians in Jerusalem:

Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.

Jeffrey Goldberg responded with exasperated incredulity: Dear Reuters, you must be kidding. David Harsanyi thought it was a bit more serious.

Most reputable news organizations, for instance, tend to downplay or completely ignore the religious affiliation of man-caused disaster makers. It's unseemly to bring stuff like that up. It only divides us.
So why did Reuters -- and other news outlets -- identify the bombing as taking place not in an Israeli neighborhood, but in a "Jewish" one? And why is it a "Palestinian" strike and not a Muslim one? Religious affiliation, it seems, is selectively vital information. Jews, you see, are a religious group occupying Jerusalem, and Palestinians are nationalists striving for autonomy in their homeland.

I don't think it was a simple mistake, though it may have been Freudian. Mostly, it seems to me a result of ideologically induced inability to relate to the world through the prism of factual reality. This is not a new phenomenon, but some people spent the 200 years between the mid 18th century and the mid 20th combating it. Then they gave up, or worse, they replaced rational inquiry with a new religion, one branch of which is called Political Correctness, or whatever it is.

The Economist recently had a weird example of the malaise. Last week they had a review of two new books about Jerusalem. Simon Sebag-Montetiore's Jerusalem: The Biography, which is not out yet in America, and James Carroll's Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World which came out two weeks ago. I have already read Sebag-Montefiore's book, and will be reviewing it elsewhere; the Carrol one should be in an Amazon box on its way over. The Economist reviewer liked the former, and was a bit put off by the latter, but the reason I'm linking is that the reviewer noted that Sebag-Montefiore ended his tale in 1967, "when Jerusalem was divided between a Palestinian and an Israeli half".

That's right. 1967 is when Jerusalem was divided. I assume the reviewer was knowledgeable on the topic of Jerusalem, and I insist on hoping the Economist uses editors, and that sentence slipped into the paper. Apparently there was then a minor uproar and they corrected their mistake, mentioning the correction at the bottom of the review. Yet it's the Freudian, or ideologically induced, mistake that is so interesting. For the first time in 2000 years the Jews control the city of Jerusalem, yet for some educated reviewers, they don't, or they mustn't, or if they do it's a tear in the fabric of existence, or something.

PS. Since I wont be reviewing Jerusalem A Biography here, (though I'll try to link to my review when it's published), I will say it's a great read, and I hope lots of people read it. Not without its flaws, of course, but worth the time and effort. And also, since there was a discussion about this a few weeks ago here on the blog: According to Sebag-Montefiore, Jews never enjoyed full equality in Jerusalem between the 1st Century CE and the 19th; they came close in the 19th century because European powers forcing their way into town insisted on the equality of their citizens, some of whom happened to be Jews. Arguably, however, they didn't enjoy full equality until after 1948, as the British carefully rigged the municipal electoral system in their years of control so that the Jewish majority of townspeople would never control the municipality, and the mayor was always an Arab. But that part isn't in Sebag-Montefiore's book.

Democratic Spring in Egypt: Oh.

The story of the Egyptian revolution is still being written, but this doesn't sound good. Not what the breathless media promised us, so far.

Haaretz Obfuscates Matters

A primary task of a high-level newspaper is to clarify complicated ongoing issues. Or at least, that's what you'd think. With newspapers such as the Guardian and Haaretz, however, the main priority is to bolster an ideological agenda, and facts are a mere handmaiden.

Today's report about taxation in East Jerusalem is a fine example. The headline, "East Jerusalem residents exempted from municipal taxes" says almost nothing except to attract our interest (who is doing the exempting? why? who is being exempted? what for? in return for what?), but that's legitimate for a newspaper. The article itself then fuses two very different subjects, and two very different sources, without telling us that's what it's doing, and thereby implies a conclusion which a fuller account would never warrant.

The beginning of the article cites a Palestinian agency claiming the 55,000 Palestinians in the section of East Jerusalem which is beyond the fence are no longer being required to pay municipal taxes; this exemption, we are told, is a bad thing, as it means Israel intends to "get rid" of those 55,000 people.

The editor at Haaretz makes no attempt to verify the story, by making some inquiries at the municipality, say. On the contrary, having quoted a Palestinian source reporting on an Israeli action, Haaretz then tells a separate story as if it corroborates the Palestinian one: that the Israeli municipality isn't building enough schools in the eastern part of town, and that the Israeli High Court of Justice has reprimanded it on the matter.

Let's see if I can unravel this, and you'll tell me if the story I end up with resembles the one Haaretz would have us believe.

Since the beginning of the construction of the fence in 2003, the geographical area annexed by Israel in 1967 commonly known as East Jerusalem (in reality it's north west, north, east, south, and southwest) has been divided into two unequal segments. Most of the area is inside the fence, including its Arab neighborhoods, and they're slowly merging into the Jewish sections. (This is a very large subject which I'm collecting material to write a book about, but for this blogpost I'll simply let it stand as is). Then there are some parts of town that are outside the fence, and the Israeli policy seems to be to allow them to revert to West Bank status: Kfar Akeb, which is actually part of Ramallah, and Shuafat, are the two largest such areas. The number of people living in these neighborhoods may be 55,000 - that's what everyone says, but the reality is that no-one knows, and anyway the fact that the number has been stable for five years at least means it's a figment of political discourse, not fact.

The first part of the Haaretz report deals with those 55,000 people. Since they live outside of the fence, and it has often been mortally dangerous for municipal technicians to enter their neighborhoods, they have been receiving ever fewer services. They can visit the fine Israeli hospitals of Jerusalem by driving to them, but the water company can't send technicians to fix water mains, for example. So this newest development is a recognition of reality. The municipality isn't able to offer them its services, so it's not going to tax them anymore. (It would be helpful to know from an official Israeli source that this is really happening, and not a figment of someone's imagination).

Meanwhile, inside the fence, the level of infrastructures including schools is mostly lower in the Arab neighborhoods than in the Jewish ones, except in the cases where it isn't. Beit Hanina (Arab) has better infrastructures than Zichron Moshe, for example. This is indeed a problem, which is why the High Court has ruled on it, yet the reasons for it, while complex in their details, are rather simple in their principles. Since 1967 Israel has not been certain it will remain in control there, since there's an international consensus it won't, and thus has been hesitant to invest large sums there. On the other hand, when it does, the result is a growing reluctance from the local Arab side to consider being sent back to live outside Israel.

If we look at the story from a political perspective, therefore, what the Palestinian source and Haaretz are complaining about is that the Israelis are creating facts on the ground in Kfar Akeb and Shuafat that will make it easier to transfer those areas to Palestinian control. In the second half of the report, Haaretz castigates Israel for not investing enough in creating facts on the ground where the Palestinians of East Jerusalem prefer to stay in Israel. Or to be even more pointed: if one assumes some day Jerusalem will be divided, the more Israel has invested in the Palestinians of East Jerusalem the greater their pain will be once they're cut off from Israel, the greater their anger, and the greater the chance that some of them will respond to being cast into Palestine by destroying the peace in Jerusalem.

If none of this fits the pat schemes we're fed year in year out by "everyone", I apologize. But that won't change the facts.

Intense Navel-Gazing at the New Yorker

Apropos uninformed outsiders interfering in serious matters they know nothing about (see my previous post) the New Yorker's David Remnick is on a roll, with the second silly column on Israel-Palestine in two weeks. This time he lambastes Netanyahu, which is a popular pastime among journalists. There's nothing particularly new or insightful in his column, but the degree of his self-absorption is a wee bit overblown. Musing on Obama, he notes that "When it comes to domestic politics in Israel, he is in a complicated spot. For some Israelis on the right, his race and, more, his middle name make him a source of everlasting suspicion."

Uh huh. Let's see. Back in the day, when Anwar Sadaat came to Jerusalem and told the Knesset, in Arabic, that peace would require that Israel return the entire Sinai, it didn't seem to matter much that he had an Arabic name, did it. I seem to recollect that masses of Israelis were swooning all over the fellow. The "No more war, no more bloodshed" part seemed more important than his religion, unless perhaps the two fused into an overpowering climax. It may be true, perhaps, that some Americans are troubled by their president's name or skin color, though not enough to prevent his election, but what does that have to do with Israelis? The Americans have their historical neuroses, and Israelis have different ones, and if Remnick insists on understanding Israelis through the prism of his own society, he should probably stick to writing about things he knows.

The Long Long War

The other day a group of readers got into a heated debate about Israeli control of the West Bank and settlements. I actually thought of responding with a post of my own which would try to pull together the various strands of the discussion and present a coherent position. Then, while I was engaged in other things, there was the murderous attack in Itamar, and it seemed the wrong time to be explaining (not for the first time) why Itamar shouldn't be there, even though peace is not in the offings.  So some other day.

In the meantime, Melanie Phillips has pulled together lots of examples of what she calls "armchair barbarism", in which respectable western media blames Jews for getting murdered.

Also, Itamar Markus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, who spend their days consuming official Palestinian media and futilely try to tell people what they're hearing, note that the leaders of the PA have condemned the recent murder, but they bear considerable responsibility for it because of their incessant incitement against Israel and glorification of murderers.

Journalists and HRW got Libya Wrong

Omri Ceren, writing yesterday at the Commentary blog, told how Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa Director Sarah Leah Whitson was all agog back in 2009 about how things in Libya were getting better. Her article appeared in Foreign Policy, and is now behind a paywall. Apparently, however, it contained the following paragraph:

What Fathi al-Jahmi died for is starting to spread in the country. For the first time in memory, change is in the air in Libya. The brittle atmosphere of repression has started to fracture, giving way to expanded space for discussion and debate [and] proposals for legislative reform… I left more than one meeting stunned at the sudden openness of ordinary citizens, who criticized the government and challenged the status quo with newfound frankness. A group of journalists we met with in Tripoli complained about censorship… [b]ut that hadn’t stopped their newspapers… Quryna, one of two new semi private newspapers in Tripoli, features page after page of editorials criticizing bureaucratic misconduct and corruption… The spirit of reform, however slowly, has spread to the bureaucracy as well… the real impetus for the transformation rests squarely with a quasi-governmental organization, the Qaddafi Foundation for International Charities and Development.

At about the same time, Libyan expatriate Mohamed Eljahmi, whose borther Fathi had recently died, wrote an anguished column about his death and the indifference of the American government, but also about Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch:

It's not just politicians who should reflect on how they handled Fathi's case. My brother's death should give prominent human rights organizations pause. For nearly a year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hesitated to advocate publicly for Fathi's case, because they feared their case workers might lose access to Libyan visas.
Only on the day of Fathi's death did Human Rights Watch issue a press release that announced what we had known for two months: That Fathi appeared frail and emaciated, could barely speak and could not lift his arms or head. When the researchers asked him on April 25 and 26 if he was free to leave prison, he said no. When they asked him if he wanted to go home, he said yes.
It's not just politicians who should reflect on how they handled Fathi's case. My brother's death should give prominent human rights organizations pause. For nearly a year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch hesitated to advocate publicly for Fathi's case, because they feared their case workers might lose access to Libyan visas.
Only on the day of Fathi's death did Human Rights Watch issue a press release that announced what we had known for two months: That Fathi appeared frail and emaciated, could barely speak and could not lift his arms or head. When the researchers asked him on April 25 and 26 if he was free to leave prison, he said no. When they asked him if he wanted to go home, he said yes.
Perhaps because they still fear antagonizing Gaddafi, in their May 21 statement Human Rights Watch didn't call for an independent investigation and stopped short of holding the Libyan regime responsible for Fathi's death.
Amnesty International also compromised. They moved an April 2009 demonstration originally slated to occur in front of Libya's U.N. mission to the U.S. mission instead so as not to antagonize Gaddafi. For the same reason, they ignored pleas for a public statement about Fathi's deterioration. While an Amnesty delegation was in Libya when Fathi died, the Libyan regime refused it permission to travel to Libya's second largest city.
Experience has shown me that country researchers in marquee human rights organizations are vulnerable to the regime's manipulation. Sarah Leah Whitson is one of the Human Rights Watch researchers who last saw Fathi before he was rushed to Jordan. She wrote an article for Foreign Policy upon her return from Libya, where she described efforts by the Gaddafi Foundation for International Charities and Development, which is headed by the Libyan leader's son, Saif al-Islam, as a "spring." The organization is actively menacing my brother's family. Some family members continue to endure interrogation, denial of citizenship papers and passports, round the clock surveillance and threats of rape and physical liquidation.
Not all organizations compromised their principles. Physicians for Human Rights didn't compromise with the Gaddafi regime and called for an independent medical investigation after Fathi's death. One day, when free media penetrates Libya, my brother's friends and admirers will learn how the American Jewish Committee sought to rally world leaders to Fathi's cause.

When the American Jewish Committee is more active than Human Rights Watch in trying to save the life of an Arab human rights activist being killed by his government, you know the world is a strange place.

Anyways, all that was long ago, in 2009. Now it's 2011, and people look at Libya differently than they used to. Or rather, uninformed people do - journalists at CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post, Financial Times, the New York Times and others. Michael Totten, on the other hand, got it right all along. Omri has done the research for us, in an absolutely devastating post which should be taught at all journalism schools the world over, but never will be.

Maybe that's why Michael Totten was the only one who got it right; he didn't go to journalism school. Nor did he train as a human rights activist.

"To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs in the millions"

Mondoweiss has a story no-one else seems to be telling: the masses in Cairo have been yelling their willingness to die so as to liberate Jerusalem.

This may not be true. Mondowiess isn't scrupulously honest, after all, and that would explain why no sane media outlet has been carrying the story. But since it appears to be based on a YouTube film, it's possible Mondoweiss is telling the truth, and it's all the rest of the media which is lying. It wouldn't be the first time ever.

History has seen dramatic and exciting revolutions before. It has seen masses eager to rid the world of the Jews, too. There have even been cases when the two were juxtaposed. Offhand, however, I can't think of any case where the two phenomenon came together and there was a good ending to the story.

Qaradawi is Back (Yawn)

Yusuf al-Qaradawi has returned to Egypt from exile, and given the main speech at the large rally in a-Tahrir Square in Cairo today. If you're willing to accept the top media outlets as your guides to what's happening in the world, this isn't much of an event. Here's the BBC, one of the topmost media outlets anywhere:

Correspondents say there is a festive atmosphere, with a military band playing and people waving flags.
Leading Friday prayers at the square, a senior cleric called on Arab leaders to listen to their people...
Television pictures showed Tahrir Square full of people. People sang songs and chanted: "The army and people are united!"
Influential Egyptian Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi said the Arab world had changed and leaders should listen to their people.
He also called for the release of all political prisoners and for Egypt's new military leaders to form a new government.
"I call on the Egyptian army to liberate us from the government that Mubarak formed," Mr Qaradawi said.

That's it. The rest of the report is regurgitated verbiage from previous reports, and a very brief quotation from one of the demonstrators about how things need to get better.
CNN is another important and influential media organ. Here's their report, which is marginally better than that of the BBC:

Waving flags and beating drums, thousands gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Friday for a "Day of Victory" rally to celebrate the one-week anniversary of the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
In what was a symbol of the dramatic change taking hold across the society, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric banned from entering the country during the Mubarak years, delivered the Friday sermon to the throng and the startling appearance was broadcast on state television.
"O Egyptians, Coptic Christians and Muslims, this is your day, all of you. January 25 was your revolution," said Qaradawi, who has a program called "Shariah and Life" on the Al-Jazeera television network.
Qaradawi -- who returned to his Egyptian homeland on Thursday -- said the "youth of the revolution has lifted the head of this country and made us proud once again."
"They are the new partisans of God. These are the young people of Egypt. The revolution is not over yet. The revolution just began. We need to rebuild Egypt. Be aware of those who want to take it away from you," he said.
Qaradawi insisted that the money "stolen" by the Mubarak regime be returned to the Egyptian people and praised the "martyrs" who died in the upheaval and for the sake of the religion.

The New York Times, being a daily not a blog, hasn't reported on the matter yet; the Guardian has put up some pictures, including one that shows Qaradawi at the rally.

You'd expect top-notch news organizations to have someone in their editorial rooms who know something. Even if not, however, there's always Google, which might send one to this informative page about Qaradawi, as posted by the respectable Investigative Project on Terrorism. He has been banned from entering the United States, for example, and in the past two years alone he has publicly said all sorts of unsavory things. (For some reason I'm not managing to cut and paste, but you ought to read the whole thing anyway.)


Years ago I accepted that the media almost never gets its reports about Israel right. It's becoming increasingly clear that they have no particular interest in getting Egypt right, either, not the parts they might easily check, such as who this Qaradawi fellow is, not the parts that cry out to be explained, such as why he, of all possible religious people in Egypt is the main speaker at the event, and not the slightly deeper parts of the story, such as what cultural messages was he choosing when he chose those particular words; what his audience heard him say, rather than what CNN heard him say.

Meanwhile, over at the Economist, they've got this sentence in their Leader on the Arab uprisings, which explains why in spite of some obvious handicaps, liberal democracy may be about to bloom:

Society is suffused by contempt for the West and hatred of Israel.

Israel? Not the Jews, by any means? The hatred is merely of Israel? How does the Economist know this?

• Called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."
• Called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.
• Affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."
• Called the Holocaust a divine punishment of Jews "for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."
• Prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."

This week, a Brotherhood official was among eight people named to a panel charged with recommending changes to Egypt's suspended constitution. As the IPT has noted, the Brotherhood's bylaws continue to call for it "to establish Allah's law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion." That includes "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings."
Der Spiegel reports that Qaradawi envisions a "United Muslim Nations" as a contemporary form of the caliphate. In its statement on the Revolution, the International Union of Muslim Scholars advocated something much broader. It called for "all components of the Egyptian people, Muslims and Copts, alike to stand as one to reach a consultative democratic government which represents the Egyptian people and its values and principles."
Images of a triumphant Qaradawi in leading prayer at the spot that triggered Egypt's revolution might trigger memories of Ayatollah Khomeini's return to Iran months after the Shah fled. Though analysts at the time did not anticipate him seizing power, the Islamic Republic was born just two months later.
Analysts today say differences in Egypt's uprising and in the Brotherhood's following make a repeat unlikely. Qaradawi's following is nowhere near as deep or committed as was Khomeini's, said Ian Johnson, author of A Mosque in Munich, But his presence in Cairo complicates Egypt's fledgling move toward democracy. "Qaradawi has been a troubling specter in global Islam for the past couple of decades," Johnson said in an email. "He has taken some reformist positions but also advocates extremist, anti-democratic views. His injecting himself into the fragile Egyptian revolution cannot be helpful to that process."
In an interview on National Public Radio, Stanford University director of Iranian studies Abbas Milani also said the Brotherhood has no charismatic leader of Khomeini's stature. But he remained skeptical of the organization's claims that it is not interested in making Egypt's revolution into an Islamic one.
"Do you believe them?" asked Steve Inskeep. "No, I don't, to be honest with you," Milani said. "I think Muslim Brotherhood has an established record of wanting to create a government based on Sharia."

Read More: Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Hosni Mubarak, Ayatollah Khomeini, Der Spiegel

Reader comments on this item

who calls him a moderate

Submitted by lord garth, Feb 17, 2011 17:14

The article said some call him a moderate.
This should be more specific. I have found that religious scholar John Esposito and CAIR national director Nihad Awad have called him moderate. I suppose there are others.

Comment on this item

Name (optional)	Email Address
Title of Comments
Comments:
Email me if someone replies to my comment Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.

Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.

FEATURED MULTIMEDIA

MOST POPULAR

• Gov. Christie's Strange Relationship with Radical Islam
• Egypt's Future and the Chameleon Muslim Brotherhood
• Update on Egypt
• Grand Jury Probing Oren Speech Disruptions
• Hand Book Shows ICNA's True Goals

MOST MAILED

• Egypt's Future and the Chameleon Muslim Brotherhood
• Gov. Christie's Strange Relationship with Radical Islam
• Jihadists Escape Egyptian Prisons
• Grand Jury Probing Oren Speech Disruptions
• CAIR Imagery Makes Obstructionist Goal Clear

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egypt

This week, a Brotherhood official was among eight people named to a panel charged with recommending changes to Egypt's suspended constitution. As the IPT has noted, the Brotherhood's bylaws continue to call for it "to establish Allah's law in the land by achieving the spiritual goals of Islam and the true religion." That includes "the need to work on establishing the Islamic State,

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egyptPrayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egypt

Called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."

Called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.

Affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."

Called the Holocaust a divine punishment of Jews "for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

Prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egypt

Called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies."

Called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.

Affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."

Called the Holocaust a divine punishment of Jews "for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."

Prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2603/qaradawi-ominous-return-to-egypt

Diverse Links to Stuff

Nir Rosen, a far left writer whom I'd never heard of until yesterday, has lost his job at NYU because he made some ugly comments about Lara Logan, a CBS reporter who was attacked by some Egyptian demonstrators last week. Apparently Rosen has spent years badmouthing Israel and America, while effusing about Hisballah and the Taliban. The moral of the story: freedom of speech is fine until you cross the line of political correctness. Lee Smith spells it out.

Apropos the revolution in Egypt, Tim Martin says it wasn't. Not a revolution, since the military was and remains in power, and not millions of people demonstrating, either. Now they tell us.

The brutal blockade of Gaza has been renewed. By Hamas, this time. Apparently the surfeit of Israeli goods severely crimped their income from taxing those tunnels. Of course, if the right (=wrong) folks come to power in Egypt, they'll throw open the Egyptian border to Gaza, and then Hamas will have to blockade them, too, which will be embarrassing. Meanwhile, Robin Shepherd is debating whether to hold his breath or not until the BBC, Guardian, David Cameron and all the other folks worldwide condemn the blockade. I certainly hope he decides not to hold his breath, since he's a good man and it would be a pity to lose him.

The lack of interest in the Hamas blockade of Gaza reminds me of Treppenwitz' link to this very fine article by Brendan O'Neill in The Australian. According to O'Neill, the Arab street doesn't seem much to care these days about the Palestinians, while certain parts of the West care only about them, and about nothing else - except that this attention is pure narcissism, and has nothing to do with the real Palestinians or their lives. If you read nothing else today, read this article, and spread it far and wide.

There is a profound narcissism in the pity-for-Palestinian movement. When American activist Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, it gave rise to a play called My Name Is Rachel Corrie. The killing of British peace activist Tom Hurndall in Gaza in 2004 led to a film called The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall.
This is clearly all about Us - the good and pure Westerners who went to find themselves in Palestine - rather than about Them, the actual Palestinians.

In a related development, a group of British (and apparently other) academics is doing its best to define the war of 1948 as an Israeli genocide committed on the Palestinians. I always thought it was the other way around: the Arabs announced they were going to destroy the Jewish Yishuv, and sent their invading armies to do the job, but somehow along the way they lost the war they had started and so the second genocide of the Jews in one single decade was averted. Maybe when you see things from Britain they look different.

Still following my stream of consciousness here, Ytzchak Reiter has a fine article about how the Palestinians since the 1930s, and ever more of the Arab world since then, are re-writing Muslim history so as to remove the Jews' connection to Jerusalem. Until the early 20th century it would never have occurred to Muslims to make this claim, but times change, and with them come needs for new perspectives.

Finally, so as not to finish on such a glum note, Israellycool has a really funny comment on the otherwise not funny recent burning to the ground of Ikea's store near Netanyah.

The (No)Peace Conundrum

Dr. Ayman Nur, a secular, liberal Egyptian who apparently sees himself as a potential leader of the country if it becomes a democracy, says the peace treaty with Israel is over. This from the liberal and secular wing of Egyptian society.

I'm not of the camp that suggests we need to assume Israel will be at war with Egypt anytime soon. Rather on the contrary. I think Israel won't be at war with Egypt anytime soon, though I'm less sanguine about the stability we've enjoyed these past 35 years. An Egyptian government could easily stir up trouble with measures that are far less severe than outright war. The significance lies elsewhere. Back in 1978 Israel reached an agreement that largely addressed all of Egypt's demands. Evey inch of territory taken in 1967 was returned. Some 20 Israeli settlements were dismantled. True, Egypt had to accept the demilitarization of the Sinai, but the only reason they ever had to have an army there was to face Israel; other than that there's no reason for having military forces there. And of course, 35 years of peace haven't done any harm to Egypt, either, what with significant American aid, and even the simple lack of war and everything that goes with it. Peace remains an Egyptian strategic need, too, not only an Israeli one.

Yet in spite of all this it's quite clear to everyone that a new Egyptian government might renege on the treaty, and almost certainly would be less friendly to Israel than the very icy friendship we've had since 1978. Some people - the Economist can plausibly represent the world media on this topic - are convinced the popular Egyptian enmity is because Israel hasn't yet made peace with the Palestinians. This causes so much aggravation, we're expected to understand, that it could easily explain why Egyptians might be willing to sustain strategic setbacks of its own, if the Israelis don't rectify it. As if it's the natural way of the world that societies willingly inflict suffering on themselves out of mere solidarity.

The other explanation, that Egyptian enmity is not about Ariel and Maale Adumim, but rather is the result of Jewish sovereignty in the middle of the Arab world, is not mentioned. If any reader can demonstrate otherwise, I encourage them to do so: please show me links to mainstream Western media reports which tell about how broad masses of Arabs hate Israel for it's being there, not to mention that they hate Jews with intensity. The thing with reality is that it doesn't need to be reported on to be true. The New York times can studiously look away from it for as long as it chooses, and still it will be there. (The Guardian, of course, actively disseminates antisemitism). If the reality is that tens of millions of Arabs hate Israel for being a Jewish state, the rise of democracy will only make things worse. I'm a great fan of democracy, and wish it on the Arabs too, but don't see any advantage in pretending things aren't as they are.

The conundrum, therefore, is this: If large numbers of Arabs hate Jews and cannot accept a Jewish state in their midst, Israel cannot make peace with them. It may be able to make peace with autocratic Arab governments, but the moment they get washed away in this or a future wave of democratization, the peace will be worthless. If, on the other hand, Israel insists on making peace only with democratic Arab regimes, there aren't many around at the moment, and refusing to deal with the autocrats will be castigated as refusing to make peace.

Recognizing a Jewish State

Elder of Ziyon has been reading the Palestine Papers,and notices a discussion from November 2007 where the two teams discussed agreeing that the goal of the negotiations would be two national homelands. They didn't manage to agree:

TL: I just want to say something. ...Our idea is to refer to two states for two peoples. Or two nation states, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security with each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination...

AH: This refers to the Israeli people?

TL: [Visibly angered.] I think that we can use another session – about what it means to be a Jew and that it is more than just a religion. But if you want to take us back to 1947 -- it won’t help. Each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory. Israel the state of the Jewish people -- and I would like to emphasize the meaning of “its people” is the Jewish people -- with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3007 years... [The Palestinian team protests.] You asked for it. [AA: We said East Jerusalem!] …and Palestine for the Palestinian people. We did not want to say that there is a “Palestinian people” but we’ve accepted your right to self determination.

TL is Tzipi Livni, AH is Akram Haniyeh.


Elder comments that the Guardian never mentioned this document in their coverage, but they definitely saw it because they cherry picked one sentence from it. Which is all true, but I think it's only fair to add another observation: this is Livni demanding Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State, a year and a half before Netanyahu, newly installed as prime minister, raised the exact same demand and was universally condemned for daring to destroy the peace process with his outlandish position.


The full document (as leaked) is here.

I'm Speechless

From the New York Times:

The administration appeared as taken aback by Mr. Mubarak’s speech as the crowds in Tahrir Square. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.
American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee. But a senior administration official said Mr. Obama had also expected that Egypt was on the cusp of dramatic change. Speaking at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, he said, “We are witnessing history unfold,” adding, “America will do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.” 

But also:

“The administration has to put everything on the line now,” said Thomas Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who has been among several outside experts advising the White House on Egypt in recent days. “Whatever cards they have, this is the time to play them.”