Middle East Pundit

For all their talk about hatred toward’s Israel, those quoted in the below story from across the Arab world have the following words of praise for the state of Israel and their handling of corruption charges by their head of state.

I’ve included the entire story as it seems to demonstrate that not everyone in the Arab world embraces a Theocratic or Totalitarian state as some yearn for Democracy and the oversight that comes with it.

From the Jerusalem Post:

“The corruption case against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has earned Israel tremendous respect throughout the Arab world, where many have called on their leaders to benefit from Israel’s democratic system and independent judicial system.

Words of praise for Israel are a rare phenomenon in the Arab media. But judging from the reactions of many Arabs to the corruption case in the past week, the trend appears to have changed.

Even some Arabs who describe themselves as “sworn enemies of the Zionist entity” have begun singing praise for Israel.

Over the past week, the corruption case against Olmert received wide coverage in the mainstream Arab media, prompting an outcry about the need for transparency and accountability in the Arab world.

“Show me one Arab or Islamic country where a prime minister or a senior government official was ever questioned for financial corruption or bribery,” said a reader who identified himself only as Majed.

Majed, like many others, was responding to a news story on an Arab Web site about the testimony in court of American philanthropist Morris Talansky, who told police he had given Olmert more than $150,000 in cash over the course of some 14 years.

Another reader, Sami, commented: “The Israeli regime with all its defects is better than all the Arab ‘democracies’ and still changes ministers and governments every few years.”

A Saudi national named Abdel Karim urged his Arab brethren to stop criticizing Israel and learn something about its democracy. “Before we curse Israel, we must learn from the democratic and judicial system in Israel, where no one is above the law,” he wrote.

Khaled, another Saudi national, chimed in: “Although we are talking about Israel, which I have always hated very much, there is still no one above the law there.”

Mahmoud al-Bakili of Yemen posted the following response on one of the Web sites: “We want this kind of accountability and transparency in the Arab and Islamic world.”

And there was this comment from an Arab who described himself as a Syrian Voice: “Despite my strong hatred for the Zionist regime, I have a lot of admiration and respect for this entity because there is no one above the law. In the Arab world, laws are broken every day and no one seems to care.”

Egyptian writer Abdel Aziz Mahmoud said he doesn’t believe the day will ever come when an Arab leader will be put on trial for sexual harassment or financial corruption.

“I don’t think we will live to see the day when the police interrogate an Arab leader for sexually harassing his secretary or receiving bribes,” he wrote. “Nor will our children and grandchildren live to see that day. What happened in Israel can never happen in any Arab country.”

Some Arabs went as far as condemning the Arab people for failing to rise against their corrupt dictators.

“There is corruption in Israel and the Arab world,” wrote Abu Hadi from Iraq. “But the difference is that the Israelis hold their leaders accountable, while we the Arabs remain silent about corruption.”

Jamal, who described himself as the Madman, wrote that “the reason why Israel has lasted for so long is because of its independent and fair judicial system. I challenge the Arabs to have such an independent judicial system.”

Many of the readers found it quite ironic that Olmert was being questioned because of “only” tens of thousands of dollars he allegedly received from Talansky.

“They say he received something like $3,000 a year,” said Abu Atab from Morocco inaccurately. “This shows that Olmert is a decent man. This is a small sum that any Arab government official would receive on a daily basis as a bribe. Our leaders steal millions of dollars and no one dares to hold them accountable.”

Touching on the same issue, a reader from Algeria posted this comment: “In the Arab world, our leaders don’t accept less than $1 million in bribes; the money must be deposited in secret bank accounts in Switzerland. Olmert is a fool if he took only a small sum.”

Another comment, this time from Ahmed in Jordan, also referred to the alleged amount: “Only a few thousand dollars? What a fool! This is what an Egyptian minister gets in a day or what a Saudi CEO gets in 45 minutes, or a Kuwaiti government official in five minutes. This is what the physician of the emir of Qatar gets every 30 seconds.”

One Arab commentator who identified himself as Jasser Abdel Hamid advised Olmert to seek citizenship of one of the Arab countries. “Why don’t you seek Arab citizenship?” he asked sarcastically. “There you can take as much money as you want. Even if they discover the theft, they will erect a statue for you in a public square.”

The following are more comments that appeared in recent days in the Arab media:

Mohammed in Lebanon: “Can you imagine if there was an investigation against an Arab or Muslim leader? Do you know how much money they would discover?”

Abu Yusef in Egypt: “Unfortunately, this is the real democracy. Our enemies are very good in practicing democracy. In the Arab world, our leaders steal everything and no one ever dares to ask a question.”

Rashid in Saudi Arabia: “Despite all our problems with the Jews, they are much better than us in fighting corruption and revealing the truth.”

Israel Lover in Saudi Arabia: “Israel is a state that deserves to exist. It deserves our profound respect. I wish I were a citizen of this state.”

Hani in Ramallah: “This is democracy at its best! Enough of dictatorship in the Arab world! Let’s learn from the Israeli example. Let’s benefit from Israel’s democracy.”

Rashid Bohairi in Kuwait: “I swear Israel is a state that will succeed. They are prosecuting their prime minister because of tens of thousands of dollars. What about the millions of dollars that Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority stole? How come the Palestinian people are still hungry?”"

In England, section five of the Public Order Act says you cannot have “representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.”

Which is the justification London police is using to prosecute a 15 year old kid for peacefully demonstrating outside Scientology headquarters in London since he held a sign that referred to the cult of Scientology as a cult.

Okay, so if it’s not okay to accurately depict Scientology as a cult since it’s somehow “threatening, abusive or insulting,” then why is it okay for Muslims to hold signs in England saying anyone who disagrees with Islam should be beheaded? Have any of those “peaceful” protesters been arrested or charged?

Is England seriously prosecuting a kid for holding a sign that refers to a cult as a cult, but not prosecuting Muslims who held signs saying “death to those who insult Islam,” “slay those who insult Islam.”

After all, which is really more dangerous, a kid protesting a goofy belief system or Muslim fundamentalists saying all who “insult” Islam should be beheaded?

Palestinians use Israel’s independence as an opportunity to denounce Israel and the media complies in this false narrative making Israel out to be the bourgeois perpetrator of evil with the Palestinians as helpless victims who had everything taken from them.

The Palestinians have designated this day as “al nakba,” aka, the disaster, which they refer to as the creation of the state of Israel.

The real “nakba” occurred in 1947 when the Arabs refused to accept an internationally designated Jewish and Arab state living side by side one another.

The real “nakba” occurred in 1948 when five Arab states sought to destroy the infant state of Israel on her first day because they couldn’t stand the idea of a Jewish state in their midst.

The real “nakba” occurred in 2000 when the Palestinians turned down a peace deal package that included everything they claim they want now.

As Barry Rubin says

“The key point is that in rejecting partition, in demanding everything and starting a war it could not win, the Arab side ensured endless conflict, the Palestinian refugee issue, and no Palestine. It wasn’t murder - it was suicide.”

Israel is not the intransigent one.

The Palestinians always have been unwilling to make peace regardless of their leadership, and probably always will be given their past behavior.

After all, is there any legitimate reason why after sixty years, Palestinians to this day still live in refugee camps outside of Israel other than to blame Israel for it or their Arab “brethren” don’t want to make Palestinians better than second class citizens?

Everyone’s witnessed the spectacle that goes by the name Jimmy Carter these past few weeks. Perhaps in an attempt to redeem his very public and very disastrous track record in the Middle East during his brief tenure in office, Carter has decided to meet with Hamas and Syria, much to the protest of the State Department, the Bush Administration and common sense.

I’m still waiting to read the headline in the next couple of weeks saying “Jimmy Carter meets with al Qaeda.”

If you’re going to meet with terrorists however, at least get the message right, which Carter can’t even do.

In direct contradiction to Carter’s assertion that Hamas would recognize the existence of Israel, Khaled Meshal said “Hamas accepts the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and with full and real sovereignty and full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return, but Hamas will not recognize the state of Israel.”

And all of this would have to be based upon three extremely unrealistic conditions - for ALL Palestinians to vote on this issue regardless of what part of the world they happen to be in and even more unrealistically, a return of 4+ million Palestinians into the sovereign state of Israel, and for Hamas and Fatah to play nice with each other.

The conditions of the first two are logistical nightmares.

For how does one get a ballot to every single Palestinian on the face of the planet and who counts and reports the ballots to ensure the integrity of the ballot measure? Of course all of this we would assume to be fair and accurate (provided Hamas ever had an intention to do so in the first place) from a “government” that cannot even govern the Gaza Strip? You’d have better luck with Pamela Anderson not remarrying or Britney not flipping out again.

And how can a “government” simply force a peace proposal on another sovereign nation by saying “you must accept four million of our people into your sovereign territory or else we won’t make peace with you?” Forget even the logistical nightmare of absorbing four million Palestinians into a country the size of New Jersey, how about the audacity to make a peace deal contingent upon such a move? What if Israel said they would only accept peace with the Palestinians unless they allowed four million Israelis to move into Palestinian territory when they already freak out about condominiums being built on alleged Palestinian land?

Can somebody please point out the hypocrisy involved in such a “proposal?”

And let’s not forget the other “proposal.” That Hamas cannot accept a “peace” deal with Israel until they’ve resolved their own infighting between Hamas and Fatah.

Hamas must maintain the appearance that they seek a peace proposal, yet given the audacity and the ridiculousness of their “proposals,” the only thing they’re interested in is more time with which to destroy Israel with.

And from the same article - “Mr. Carter said in the interview that he found the Hamas leadership, including Mr. Meshal, to be clear-thinking, educated people who gave no sign of fanaticism, although he did condemn in harsh terms their use of violence. During his meetings, he said, they did not break for prayer or talk of holy land or God. “It was secular talk,” he said.”

Well, since Hamas is clear thinking and educated with no signs of fanaticism, then perhaps we can overlook the continuous rocket assaults, the stockpilings of weaponry for all out war and the training from Iran for such an event.

If you’re going to become the new spokesperson for terrorists Mr. Carter, at least find out what your terrorist buddies will and won’t accept.

The BBC has reported two members of Hamas’ military wing were killed at one of their training facilities in the Gaza Strip, and, true to script, Hamas has blamed Israel for their deaths.

Knowing Hamas, they probably died while trying to put together suicide bombs or some other form of explosive device when they met their end, and now, can go out as martyrs (even in their stupidity) because Hamas can still use this “fortuitous” event as another opportunity to castigate Israel.

It’s not like Hamas has ever staged anything for the media before… you know, like meeting during the day, closing the drapes and lighting candles to protest the power shortage in the Gaza. To which even Palestinian journalists were suprised given that the sun was shining and they didn’t need the candles!

Ironically, Israel’s power plant in Ashkelon which is located 10 miles north of the Gaza provides power to Gaza, to which Hamas and the other jihadists have utilized to construct Qassam rockets to launch into Ashkelon and other Israeli cities.

In other words, Israel is providing Palestinians the power they need to construct rockets to launch into Israel.

However, if Israel doesn’t provide power to the Palestinians in the Gaza they get attacked in the media for it.

Either way, Hamas wins a battle.

The NY Time argues the Bush Administration has had a huge policy shift in the Middle East, seeking to facilitate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, whereas previously the Administration has had a very hands off approach.

The story says,

At President Bush’s first National Security Council meeting in January 2001, he announced that he did not want to be drawn into the shattered Middle East peace process, people at the meeting recalled, because he believed that former President Bill Clinton had pushed so hard for an Israeli-Palestinian accord that he made the situation worse.

This may have been one reason why the Bush Administration never pushed for peace until recently, however, more accurately, the Bush Administration never pushed for peace because the Administration felt that Israel did not have a legitimate peace partner to work with in Yasir Arafat.

Since then, much has happened…

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip to which Hamas claimed credit and overwhelmingly won legislative elections.

Israel also had to fight a war with Hezbollah in the Summer of 06 due to continuous pressure from Hezbollah.

Many American policymakers and journalists believe Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party has the willingness and perhaps even the ability to make peace with the Israelis, which is what the Annapolis summit is all about.

I’m quite sure there are other factors involved in the Bush Administration’s seeming lack of interest in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, however, one has to take into consideration a lack of willingness on the part of one side to make peace for one cannot impose peace on someone regardless of how hard one tries.

The NY Times hints at this idea as follows…

Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice began to engage in a major rethinking. The result was a speech, a major departure in American policy, that called for Palestinian elections and demanded the ouster of Mr. Arafat before the United States would support a Palestinian state.

Of course, Arafat was the main obstacle to peace then, whereas Hamas is the main obstacle to peace now.

To demand Israel make peace with an unwilling other party who controls the situation is unreasonable.

So what’s Rice doing now? As Dennis Ross has pointed out,

The secretary believes such a “political horizon” will benefit President Mahmoud Abbas in his competition with Hamas. Hamas may control Gaza today, but Rice is betting that if Abbas can show that he offers a pathway to achieving Palestinian national aspirations and Hamas offers only failure, Palestinians will eventually reject Hamas.

Given all of this, it makes more sense due to the facts on the ground, that the Bush Administration has held off for these reasons, but is giving it another chance in the hopes that Abbas can marginalize Hamas and actually have someone (however imperfect they may be) to work with in the future.

Bernard Lewis highlights two very different set of issues for today’s Annapolis summit regarding what he terms “The Jewish Question.”

The first issue involves Israel and physical border disputes with her neighbors - something which can and should be worked on.

However, if the discussion consists of the existence of the state of Israel, then any negotiation is doomed from the start.

Lewis says,

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

Hamas’ version of Palestinian “rights” is at the expense of the state of Israel. For if Hamas got what they wanted, the Jews (and the Arabs that don’t follow their version of Islam) that live in Israel would all either be killed or shipped to New York City.

Hamas claims to have offered continuous truces to Israel saying Israel has refused them all, making it seem as if Israel is the intransigent one.

In exchange for offering up a substantial portion of the land Israel acquired through self-defence, Hamas offers a temporary cessation of fighting (truce or hudna), giving Hamas time to regroup and rearm. This is exactly what Hamas means by a truce as they have unequivocally written off peace with Israel.

And so Hamas has sought to discredit the Anapolis summit, for a peace settlement between the Palesitnians and the Israelis would mean the end of their little experiment - radical Islamism mixed with politics.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with a two percent approval rating, does not want to go down in such defeat and wants to do something, even if that something has no possible chance on the ground of succeeding.

The Bush Administration initially sought to have participants endorse a joint statement on the core priniciples for resolving the conflict, according to Dennis Ross, which would show the Palestinians that Mahmoud Abbas can offer something tangible to the Palestinians, hence would take away power from Hamas.

However, the Bush Administration has scaled back and instead seeks to facilitate negotiations on the permanent status issues including settlements, Jerusalem, security and the right of return.

Syria of course, would like to acquire the coveted Golan Heights so they’re participating.

Perhaps all parties can enter negotiations on the core priniciples for resolving the conflict, however, the parties will have to let go of their own viscerally held beliefs.

Israel must let go of keeping ALL of Jerusalem, and the Palestinians must let go of the “Right of Return” as no Israeli Prime Minister and Israeli public would ever allow it to happen as it would end the state of Israel.

Democrats are in such a conundrum…

Do they admit the surge has worked and for now has created a stable security environment in Iraq which reflects the reality on the ground, or continue to focus on everything but this well documented reality?

Unfortunately, instead of doing what’s best for America (both Democrats and Republicans), the Democratic presidential candidates have instead focused on anything they can find negative about Iraq, and any other issue that distracts them from acknowledging the success of the surge.

Patrick Healy of the NY Times says

“This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

So Democratic voters will not embrace the reality that the surge has made a difference in Iraq’s security…so what?

As Commander in Chief, one has to make decisions that are not always popular with voters if it’s in the best interest of the security of the United States. Anyone who pretends otherwise, is not fit to hold this office.

If Democratic voters want to hold onto a fictional reality because they don’t want to support President Bush, then every Presidential candidate needs to call them out and question why these voters would so desperately want the United States to lose in Iraq.

Isn’t it normal to want your country to succeed in foreign policy regardless of who is in office?

Bill Richardson’s saying human rights are more important than U.S. national security is old news. 

What’s interesting though, is Joe Klein’s defense of Bill Richardson’s answer that at times, if President, he would place human rights above U.S. national security.

Does anybody actually think we should make Richardson our Commander in Chief if he cannot get this fundamental issue right?

In the Democratic debate November 15, Wolf Blitzer asked Richardson, “What you’re saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?”

Richardson said “yes.”

Klein defends such weak-kneed diplomacy and says “All Richardson and Obama were saying was that support for human rights was an essential component of U.S. foreign policy.” (bold mine)

Actually no Joe. 

Richardson answered in the affirmative to human rights, at times, as more important than American national security. 

He did not say human rights are a component of U.S. national security but that at times they are more important than U.S. national security interests. 

Conservatives are right to highlight such a blatant disregard for the office they aspire to. 

Yes, human rights are important, but if you no longer have a country to defend because you have placed human rights ahead of national security you are unfit to lead.

Joe Klein should know better.

Anybody and I mean anybody who doesn’t think the surge is working or that we as Americans are not making progress in Iraq needs to read this post by Michael Yon (scroll to the bottom).

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen any fighting. I can’t remember my last shootout: it’s been months. The nightmare is ending. Al Qaeda is being crushed. The Sunni tribes are awakening all across Iraq and foreswearing violence for negotiation. Many of the Shia are ready to stop the fighting that undermines their ability to forge and manage a new government. This is a complex and still delicate denouement, and the war may not be over yet. But the Muslims are saying it’s time to come home. And the Christians are saying it’s time to come home. They are weary, and there is much work to be done.

And check out this pic by Michael Yon of Muslims and Christians erecting a cross on a church in Iraq…