A First Rate Anti-American Polemicist

"The Bad Old Days"; By James Traub; BR6

James Traub twice encourages President Barack Obama to read Rashid Khalidi's Sowing Crisis in "The Bad Old..." The recommendation, however, does not match up with his review, the better part of which is dedicated to addressing a matter to which Khalidi gives scant attention.

Khalidi censures American foreign policy toward the Middle East, arguing, in Traub's words, that "the Bush administration's interventionist posture...is no mere post-9/11 aberration, but represents an especially bellicose expression of a longstanding campaign." 

The more interesting question, however, which Traub investigates toward the end of his review, is "whether Arab failure is, at bottom, a consequence of [US] behavior." 

Despite the note of praise for Sowing Crisis implicit in recommending the book to President Obama, one can hardly come away from Traub's review with a positive impression of Khalidi. Why the reviewer chose to dissemble his criticism evidences the mistakenly charitable manner with which others deal with Khalidi as a scholar. 

After all, as the review concedes, the scholarship is weak and the style, polemical.

The "Bad Old..." succeeds when it serves as a platform for Traub’s reasonable views on why the Arab world is impoverished. He writes, “the experiences of colonialism and of the cold war have left much of the Arab world with the deeply ingrained habit of blaming its problems on outsiders.” 

President Obama should read the book “to be reminded how very hard it is to make progress in a region where memories are long, and practically everything is blamed on the United States (or Israel).” This knowledge, however, will not be gained through this book, for it is Traub’s view, not Khalidi's.

In fact, it seems that Sowing Crisis will emphasize exactly the opposite – that every failure in the Middle East should be blamed on the United States.

Unsuccessful Nominee

"Letters: The Case of the Derailed Nominee;" A20

Of the five letters appearing in today's paper about Charles W Freeman Jr.'s withdrawal of his candidacy from a top intelligence post, three expressed disappointment about Freeman's decision, and one, the fifth, was informed. 

MJ Rosenberg suffers from the same lack of comprehension that Jon Stuart Leibowitz does. For a government official to be critical of his own government is healthy and normal but to be critical of another country, of which one is not a citizen, can be recognized as hostility. 

The two other negative letters were cliche, betraying a lack of information on the part of the writers. Hanan Watson plays the familiar "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism" refrain, and Michael Scott calls Freeman pro-Palestinian when, in truth, the view he represents is actually that of the Saudi Monarch. 

The one letter that was unabashedly positive about Freeman's withdrawal, by David Harris, was well-written. Harris rehashed the multiplicity of reasons why Freeman was not the right man for the job. 

Freeman Pick Not Just "Controversial"

"Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post"
A1, Thursday, 3/12/09,
By Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper

Played up are Freeman’s more tepid comments about Israel, as well as the response to his prospective appointment of several pro-Israel elements. Played down, or omitted, are Freeman’s more inane comments about Israel and the “Israel lobby,” others [outside of pro-Israel] opposed to Freeman’s appointment, and critical details from Freeman’s resume.

Chas Freeman is not just a couple of cutting comments on Israel. He was the wrong choice for a position in intelligence upon which the leader of the free world relies. Questions unasked are: What was Blair’s motivation in selecting Freeman? What was the administration’s role? Who dropped the ball on this one?

Instead of an appraisal of the Freeman selection, this article provides a platform for him, and “some of his defenders” to take down the bogeyman lobby. They seem to be on trial here, not Freeman.

"Controversial” and “an unnecessary distraction” were what some in the White House thought about Freeman. But is why Freeman is unqualified?

Freeman’s many Israel comments are surely controversial, but they’re also inane, and provide a window into Mr. Freeman’s distorted and unhelpful views on Israel and the conflict. That this is what did Freeman in isn’t entertained here.

Today’s editorial in the Washington Post makes several important points left out of this article.

The editorial’s sub-head notes, it’s the Obama administration’s “latest failed nominee,” yet this obvious angle wasn’t broached in the Times article.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was “incensed by (Freeman’s) position on dissent in China”. Her name, as well as the names of “numerous members of Congress” critical of Freeman were absent from the Times article.

Freeman’s more hysterical sounding words from his announcement yesterday were also absent. Freeman described himself as the victim of the Israel lobby, whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency.”

The article plays up the fact that some in the pro-Israel community are openly critical of Obama’s Israel policies and states that “Mr. Freeman had the potential to touch a nerve.” As evidence, readers are told of Obama’s supposed “distancing” from Zbigniew Brzezinski during last year’s campaign, after “complaints from some pro-Israel groups”.

Readers are told of Freeman heading the Middle East Policy Council, without being informed that this group was Saudi-funded.

There’s some positive here, as in Schumer’s comment that Freeman showed an “irrational hatred of Israel,” and in the idea that Freeman’s views on Israel “reflected bias that could not be tolerated in someone who…would have overseen what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments” for the president.

One would think all of these issues regarding Freeman transcend his hostility to Israel, but this article isn’t even framed around Freeman’s hostility to Israel. It’s framed around the hostility to his hostility – Freeman’s “derailing”.

The article’s title reflects this the most. Whereas the title cites “Israel’s stance” as Freeman’s undoing, it could’ve also cited “conflicts of interest” or "contentious positions". Furthermore, Freeman’s withdrawal could’ve easily been placed in the larger context of another Obama appointment misstep.

Instead, it's all about the lobby.

Psychologists For Gaza's Kids

"An Israeli Playground, Fortified Against Rockets"
A9, Thursday, 3/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner

In its continued coverage of Sderot, the Times again fails to grasp Israel’s impossible situation.

Israel went to war in late December to put an end to the rockets, and though it pummeled Gaza for three weeks, killing some 1,300 people and destroying hundreds of buildings, the rockets have not stopped.”

Israel must not be doing something right.

"Hamas says" the economic siege is the "main motive" for the rockets. Okay, but what about all those rockets before the siege? Rockets beget siege, but that's not pointed out here.

It’s interesting that Hamas tries to “persuade” Israel and the world to end the siege by…firing more rockets. For Hamas, blowing up a kindergarten must be its own version of aggressive diplomacy.

While Israel and the world balk at Hamas’ outstretched hand, Gaza’s children face another problem from war. They’re armed for perpetual conflict by a self-destructive militaristic polity. Not according to Unicef, which feels they don’t have enough psychologists – not like in Israel.

A revealing, and what should’ve been an obvious contrast, could’ve been made between Israel's and Gaza's concept of shelter. Can't Hamas fortify bomb shelters the way Israel has? It's perhaps fortunate that question was not posed, lest Israel's blockade be blamed for Hamas' disregard for human life.

European Psyche

"Israel: Court Blocks Rights Activist From Traveling"; World Briefing from AP; A12

Perhaps to undermine the Israeli Supreme court's decision, a report in the World Briefing did not mention the name of the "militant group" that Shawan Jabarin, director of Al-Haq, was a member. It was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the former Palestine Liberation Organization.

The award Jabarin received, the Geuzen Medal, is named after a World War II Dutch resistance group. That a member of the PLO could receive a medal connected to resistance against the Nazis speaks to the complex and distorted psyche of some Europeans.

Hamas Demands, Israel "Balks"

"As Olmert’s Time in Office Nears End, Captive Soldier’s Saga Gains Urgency"
A6, Monday, 3/9/09,
By Isabel Kershner

The lone bright spot is Kershner balancing the desire of Schalit’s family, and their supporters, with what a large part of Israel thinks. “People here also remember the names of youths who were blown up on buses by terrorists, and they are debating the morality of releasing those convicted of such attacks in exchange for Corporal Shalit, part of a list of prisoners Hamas wants freed.”

Still, is it the high number on that list, or is one prisoner, a killer, too much? Where is this question? Almost worse, readers don’t even know how many prisoners Hamas has demanded.

Kershner quotes Yossi Mendellevich, who “argues that Israel has not fully examined other options for freeing Corporal Shalit.” Was he asked about these other options? Either way, this point should have been examined.

That the Red Cross hasn’t been allowed to see Schalit is a good point here, but one that hasn’t been pursued by the Times.

"With Israel balking at releasing all the prisoners on the Hamas list…”

"Balking" assumes either a violation, or some sort of deviation from what is to be expected.

Acceding to a Hamas demand about releasing throngs of dangerous terrorists into what should be a peaceful Palestinian society is not simply going through the motions. This is either a misuse of “balk” or a misreading of the situation.

What really should’ve been questioned are the possible effects of releasing over a thousand prisoners. Are these mass prisoner releases supposed to have a moderating effect on Palestinian society or negotiating positions? Have they? Analysts would've been eager to respond.

Fayyad Resigns to Spite

1. "Premier Quits To Help Unify Palestinians"; By Isabel Kershner; 6,12
   
2. "On Middle East Trip, Clinton Turns Up the Caution"; By Mark Landler; 10

To begin, a point of acclaim: Isabel Kershner reports on "the Western-backed Palestinian Authority." This description is more appropriate than the oft-written "moderate" or "more moderate Palestinian Authority."

On a critical note, one glaring question is left unasked in Kershner's "Premier Quits...," How will Salam Fayyad's resignation affect Palestinians, his constituency?

A senior adviser to the former prime minister told Kershner that Fayyad's resignation was an F You to Israel and the United States. Now, that is fine and good, but at the end of the day, Fayyad was the prime minister, the most empowered elected official in the Palestinian Authority. One would hope that he would be motivated by more than spite. His departure will likely hurt his constituency since he is a valued politician.

Independent of Fayyad's decision, Kershner's article has several weak points. She refers to Hamas as an "Islamic group" rather than a terrorist organization. In addition, she describes the PM's resignation "as a conciliatory gesture to Hamas." It could also be described as an act of submission, a backing down, given Hamas' proclivity to violence and aggression. 

Finally, she allows the aforementioned senior adviser to insert propaganda against Israel's policy regarding Jewish communities, or settlements, in disputed territory. NYT has a special distaste for these communities, and its reporters often highlight the trouble that they supposedly cause. 

Mark Landler's coverage of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's overseas diplomacy is a case in point. The third paragraph of "On Middle East Trip..." is about Clinton's response to questions about "Jewish settlements in the West Bank." 

Landler considered Clinton's comments rather mute and explains them as an effort not to "ruffle feathers among constituencies back home," which is a backhanded swipe at the American Jewish community. The possibility that Clinton is aware that incitement to violence and terrorism by Palestinians is more of an obstacle to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority than "Jewish settlements" is hardly broached.

The notion of "pressuring Israel" arises later in Landler's Diplomatic Memo, and its most infamous advocate, Aaron David Miller, receives his weekly allotment of space. (In this instance, he actually appears clumsy and flabbergasted.) 

Nowhere in the article is the prospect of pressuring Palestinians mentioned. 

Most reliably, NYT perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict through its overemphasis on settlements and underemphasis on incitement to violence.