Is Obama "Unfair" If He Supports Israel?

1) "Abbas Seeks Greater Gaza Role for His Palestinian Authority," A14, by Sabrina Tavernise & Sebnem Arsu
2) "Beyond the Banks," WK10, by Thomas Friedman
3) "Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama," WK11, by Alaa Al Aswany
4) "Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?" WK9, Letters
5) "Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism" AR4, Letters

1) Abbas Seeks Greater Gaza Role for His Palestinian Authority

In the only Israel-related news article of the day, the continuing divide between Fatah and Hamas is the topic of discussion. Fatah is attempting to reassert its influence over Gaza since its ouster in June 2007. This division has prevented the reconstruction of Gaza, since international donors are averse to place funds in the hands of Hamas. Tavernise writes that "reconstruction is mired in politics" but she could have also easily wrote that it is obstructed by Hamas' unyielding commitment to extremism.

In the article, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, declares his interest in creating a unity government with Hamas as the only way forward. He declares that "We want a government that would not constitute a pretext for Israel to continue the siege" but at the same time, "We are not calling Hamas to recognize Israel, but we expect this from the government to be newly formed."

The Times does not recognize this as the non-starter it is. How can such a unity government negotiate a peace treaty with Israel when one of its principal partners is dedicated to its destruction? It's unlikely that any Israeli government would ever agree to such a negotiating scenario.

2) Beyond the Banks
3) Why the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama

Friedman's opinion piece makes a reasonable point, but is more than a bit overzealous. Friedman argues that the Dayton mission, which has trained Palestinian troops to maintain order in the West Bank, is a project that needs to be renewed and expanded. He points to the program's success in establishing order in the city of Jenin. Only with order in the Palestinian territories, he argues, can be there be real institution and nation-building.

That's a fair point, but along the way he makes some quizzical assertions and has makes glaring omissions. In terms of omissions, Friedman seems to presume that Fatah is a 'good-faith negotiating partner with Israel.' Abbas simply needs to be strengthened. This was the same logic displayed during Arafat's years, when he was constantly pleading he needed Israel and the West to strengthen him. As a result, he was never pressured to reform his rejectionist attitude toward Israel and ultimately turned his Western-provided arms against the Jewish State during the Second Intifada. The only thing that seems to be preventing such a rehash of events if the fact that Fatah is more motivated by fear of Hamas than hatred for Israel.

Additionally, Friedman writes as if Fatah is democratic or at least interested in implementing democracy. Just like the Iraqis, "Palestinians need the same chance" to build a democracy. But once again, who is to say that the corrupt and authoritarian has any interest in doing so? Their really isn't any such indication.

Overall, expanding the Dayton Mission may prove a positive idea, but Friedman needs to take seriously the risks of cooperating with Fatah, rather than pretending as if it's some pure party of reform.

***

In the second opinion piece on Sunday, Egyptian Alaa Al Aswany writes on why "the Muslim World Can't Hear Obama." He writes that Egyptians admire President Obama because he represents "fairness," but because he did not condemn Israel's military operations in Gaza as a "massacre" (a libelous charge), Egyptians have "already begun to tune out" the new American President.

The thing most Egyptians seemed to be tuned into is their own ethnocentrism. It seems they cannot imagine a world in which Israel isn't vociferously condemned and delegitimized at every turn. Aswany demands that Obama "recognize what we see as a simple, essential truth: the right of people in an occupied territory to resist military occupation." By resistance, is Aswany referring to Hamas' "right" to target Israeli civilians?

Aswany's statements prove why the U.S. is an ally of Israel. They both share democratic and humanitarian values while the Arab world, mired in radicalism and dictatorships, does not. But in Aswany's ethnocentric world, a world of "fairness" is only one in which Israel is recognized as a blight upon humanity. Not this time.

4) Is It Time for a New Approach to Iran?
5) Emily Jacir: Art and Self-Criticism

The first set of letters to the editor come up mainly in support of Roger Cohen's problematic recipe of engagement with Iran. These letters are replete with very tenuous assertions regarding Iran's pursuit of nuclear independence.

Here is the worst among them:

The Iranian government has good reason to fear United States aggression against its sovereignty and would be wise not only to maintain its nuclear program full tilt, but also to start building nuclear arms, since that is, in fact, the only way it can protect itself against constant American and Israeli threats.

If Israel can be permitted to have nuclear arms with full United States approval, why shouldn’t Iran protect itself in the only way that is possible against two fiercely aggressive, nuclear-armed powers?

Characterizing Israel and the United States as "aggressive, nuclear-armed powers" is an unfortunate manipulation of reality. The only reason Iran may be targeted is due to its own hostility against Israel and the United States, supporting terrorist groups in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan that have killed hundreds of Israelis and Americans. Conversely, Israel and the U.S. have not supported terrorist groups on Iran's border. Drawing a moral equivalence between an aggressive theocracy - whose objective is to spread Khomeinism - and two liberal democracies, shows a severe lack of moral clarity.

In comparison, here is the only letter that directly challenged Cohen's piece:

Roger Cohen talks of Iran’s “past support to terrorist organizations” without acknowledging the millions of dollars that it continues to provide to Hamas and Hezbollah.

By calling Iran a “vibrant” democracy where “both words in its self-description — Islamic Republic — count,” Mr. Cohen suggests that America and Iran share political values. Yet he later argues that America should engage first with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because he holds the true power. Vesting power in a theocratic authority who does not answer to the public is certainly not the common definition of a democratic republic.

That Cohen would write such blatant falsehoods in order to downplay the extremism of Iran is simply disturbing and "not fit to print."

*****

In the other letter to the editor, a reader challenges the anti-Israel attitude of artist Emily Jacir and her lack of introspection:

A great civilization, in my opinion, is distinguished by two traits. First, by the condemnation of brutality in its own society. In other words, how are the weakest members of the society treated? How are women treated? With honor or with physical force? And second, its capacity for self-criticism. Is it punishable by beatings or assassination?

When will we see a Palestinian artist critical of Palestinian society? After they have had their state for 2,000 years?

A society that is incapable of recognizing its own faults is a dangerous one. Unlike Israelis, Palestinians have shown little capacity for self-criticism and should be challenged on that account.