The Book of Esther: A Political Analysis

The Book of Esther: A Political Analysis

By Barry Rubin

The Book of Esther, which is read on Purim and to which that holiday is dedicated, has been interpreted many ways. Yet there is much to be understood by analyzing the story in terms of political ideology and strategy.

Ahasuerus is the powerful king over Persia and much more. He holds a banquet and invites the leaders of all of the provinces to come in order to wield together his diverse empire by showing his wealth, strength, generosity, and bringing together his political elite in terms of fellowship and equality with each other.

While drunk, he orders Queen Vashti to come to the banquet to display herself. She refuses, for unspecified reasons, and his advisors urge him to depose her and select a new queen. A young Jewish woman, Esther, is among the candidates. Urged by her uncle Mordecai, she conceals her religiosity-ethnicity, enters the competition, and eventually wins.

At this point, the story introduces a new theme. The king makes Haman prime minister. Mordecai, for unspecified reasons, refuses to bow to him. On discovering Mordecai is a Jew, Haman resolves to destroy all the Jews in the empire.

The story provides a sophisticated analysis of antisemitism:

First, Haman’s antagonism toward all Jews springs from a personal and psychological conflict. This has often been true in history including today.

Second, that conflict is then dressed up in political language to justify it to the ruling authority and the masses.

Third, Haman provides the classic,  statement of non-theological antisemitism that could easily fit into the nineteenth and twentieth century and even today, mirroring the kinds of things hinted for example by nominee for secretary of defense Chuck Hagel. Haman explained:

“There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples…of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s law, and it is not in your majesty’s interest to tolerate them.”

In other words, the Jews comprise what would later be called a separate national group. It is impossible to assimilate them; they are disloyal due to dual loyalty; and despite their apparent weakness they plot against you.

I'm sure that Hagel is not antisemitic in any conscious way yet he echoes the same themes that Haman used. Haman might have said that he was not a "Jewish" minister but a "Persian" minister, who would not bow down to the Jewish lobby whose interests subverted those of the nation.  

A contemporary problem in understanding antisemitism today is that hegemonic political, intellectual, and informational forces in the West want to measure antisemitism by conscious intent and not by the use of well-worn historical (these are even in the Bible!) themes, though that is precisely the criterion that they do use in examining just about any other sort of bigotry. They also begin by excluded all non-Western populations from possibly being antisemitic. But Haman was residing in a non-Western society.  

Fourth, antagonism against the Jews camouflages a desire to loot their wealth, in other words material gain. 

The king agrees—after all, his most trusted courtier has just told him it’s a kill or be killed situation—and issues the decree for genocide.

In contradiction to these claims of Haman is Mordecai’s good citizenship. This would later become a major theme of Jewish assimilation—I don’t use the latter word in a pejorative sense here—that Jews must prove they are the best, most loyal citizens. Mordecai saves the king by uncovering a real plot against him. By his example, Mordecai shows Jews are not subversives and disloyal.

Yet Mordecai's good behavior is useless if the king doesn't know about it. Suppose mass media existed and hadn't covered Mordecai's behavior but reported on all of Haman's speeches? 

Especially remarkable is the behavior of Esther. Warned of Haman’s plan, Esther wants to do nothing lest she place herself at risk. After all, she is a fully “assimilated,” even hidden, Jew. But Mordecai reminds her: Do not imagine that you will escape because of your high position.  

It’s easy to suggest that this can be compared to the Nazi desire to kill all Jews on a “racial” basis. But there are many types of such situations. What’s especially interesting is that Esther’s situation shows how individual Jews can try to set themselves apart to be immune or even prosper from persecutions: converted Jews against steadfast ones in medieval times; “Modernized, semi-assimilated Jews against traditionalist immigrants in America and Western Europe; and anti-Israel Jews against pro-Israel ones and Israel itself today.   

What if Esther was not such a good person, or didn't have Mordecai to advise her? What if she knew that she would not be punished but in fact could benefit from remaining silent or even joining into the denunciation of the Jews of the day? Suppose she could have redefined the situation to say that there were in fact good, pro-Persian Empire Jews as opposed to those bad Jews who wanted to return from exile in the Persian Empire to the Land of Israel, from which her great-great-grandfather had been taken as  prisoner? 

Esther, fortified by the advice of her beloved uncle’s advice, an appeal to enlightened self-interest, and the only hint in the book of a divine role—her position was the Creator’s doing so she could fulfill this task--risks her life to stop the mass murders. 


In addition, Haman reveals part of his motivation. All his wealth, influence, and power, he explains, mean “nothing to me every time I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the palace gate” and refusing to bow to him. In other words, Haman’s antisemitism exceeds the bounds of rational calculation. Out of blind hatred, he is willing to risk his own destruction to wipe out those whose existence he refuses to accept. That’s pretty relevant for our times.

In contrast is Mordecai’s behavior. Made prime minister with absolute power by the king in Haman’s place, Mordecai does not seek to make the Jews the rulers (belying the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Islamist ideology) but only for defensive purposes.  

The king’s decree permitted the Jews to, “Assemble and fight for their lives, if any people or province attacks them” and inflict unlimited vengeance. True, the retribution is horrible in modern-day terms, extending to the innocent members of families, but limited in the context of that era.

In contrast to Haman’s claims they do not take their enemies’ property nor do they seek to conquer the empire, the Middle East, or the world. They just want to live and be left alone.

What does this story mean for us today in political, strategic, and intellectual terms?

The indecisive “Esthers” who so often populate the ranks of Western elites should take notice of how she resolved her dilemma. True, in their modern societies they can escape persecution because of their high positions. Indeed, by joining the lynch mobs they can even better secure their positions. They can use this method to appear more virtuous, to earn more praise. Yet in doing so they are not so much betraying a people they do not recognize as such but rather the principles of justice and intellectual honesty they claim as their new, post-ethnic, post-religious loyalty.

And, finally, the main Hamans of our age are ultimately gunning for them, not solely because they are Jews—since this applies equally to their Christian counterparts--but because of their countries’ policies and their societies’ values. This is true even if these modern-day, "pre-commitment" Esthers either claim that Haman is really moderate or merely specify that only some (right-wing? Zionist?) Jews are disloyal to the state and its liberal values and strategic interests in order to push a selfish, counterproductive agenda. If those bad Jews are defeated then Haman will leave everyone else alone. 

Haman could have lived in peaceful coexistence with the Jews and spent his time building up the kingdom and helping his own people. Only since he behaved otherwise could the king decree, “Let the evil plot…recoil on his own head.” In the Middle East’s modern history this has often happened. Those who have sought to destroy Israel have brought disaster onto their own heads and that of their own peoples.

Yet it is equally true, in the Middle East and in lands far away, the ideology of Haman remains very much alive, even unto Persia itself. 


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-book-of-esther-political-analysis.html

Europe and Hamas

Europe and Hamas

by Elliott Abrams


The London newspaper Al Hayat carried a story on February 21 about the intentions of EU states to support Hamas participation in a Palestinian “national unity government.”

It seems that “the European boycott of the Palestinian Government formed by Hamas after winning the 2006 elections will not be repeated,”  according to someone described as a “senior European diplomat.” France and Britain want to relaunch the “peace process,” and this time “on a new basis and without preconditions.”  The diplomat is quoted as saying “today there exists an international consensus on the need for the establishment of a Palestinian State….we welcome the entry of Hamas into the PLO and the fact that it accepted the PLO charter.”

If the story is accurate, it represents a significant change in EU policy. Previously, the EU–as part of the Quartet, with the United States, Russia, and the UN–had staunchly supported the “three Quartet principles.” These required that Hamas abandon violence and terror, accept all previous Israel-PLO agreements as binding, and accept Israel’s right to exist. Now it seems the Europeans are asking far less of Hamas–in fact, appear to be asking nothing at all before applauding a role in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and in the PLO for what is officially regarded in the EU as in the United States as a terrorist group.

The dangers here are great. In an article in the Weekly Standard, I discussed the legal problems that Hamas’s participation in the PA would create for the United States because it is a terrorist group. In Tested By Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the book I’ve just published, the story of what transpired in 2006 is told. What the Quartet decided then was that Hamas could run in the Palestinian parliamentary elections but could not participate in the government unless it met the three conditions noted above. Hamas refused to meet any of them. It didn’t bargain, nor did it lie; it simply refused. That meant that the Russians and Europeans, whom I thought would have abandoned the “Quartet principles” at the drop of a hat, could not do so; Hamas refused to drop a hat.

Now seven years later, Hamas hasn’t changed but the Europeans may have–and may simply be dropping any conditionality. They appear to believe this is the road to successful peace negotiations. Their theory is that President Abbas and his Fatah Party will be afraid to make the necessary compromises unless they are confident Hamas will back them–instead of accusing them of treason. This may well be true, as far as it goes: Abbas, like Arafat before him, may be afraid to make the necessary compromises. But why do the Europeans, or anyone else, believe that Hamas will back any compromises at all? Will they compromise on Jerusalem? On abandoning the so-called “right of return?” On determining a border that allows the large settlement blocs to become Israeli territory? What’s the basis for that belief? And how can the inclusion in the Palestinian government of a terrorist group that is still committing, and justifying, acts of terror persuade Israelis to make the compromises they would need to make?

I have no secret information telling me whether the Al Hayat story is true or false. But if it is true, the Europeans are heading in very much the wrong direction. Giving Hamas a greater role will make peace even harder to attain, because Hamas does not seek peace.

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2013/02/22/europe-and-hamas/

Palestinians See Cultural Theft In Israel's Herod Exhibit

Palestinians See Cultural Theft In Israel's Herod Exhibit

JOEL GREENBERG


JERUSALEM — A major exhibit at Israel's national museum that is devoted to Herod the Great, the Roman-era king of Judea, has become the latest front in a struggle between Israelis and Palestinians over cultural heritage.

The show is billed as the most ambitious and expensive archaeological exhibition put on by the Israel Museum outside of its permanent collections, and its centerpiece is a partial reconstruction of what is believed to be the king's tomb at Herodium, a hilltop palace-fortress south of Jerusalem in the West Bank.

On display are some 30 tons of material from the site, including masonry from the tomb structure and a reconstructed sarcophagus thought to have held the king's remains, along with frescoes and mosaics restored by the museum staff, a massive royal bathtub and other finds excavated in Jerusalem and at desert palaces in Jericho and ancient Cypros, also in the West Bank.

The exhibit, which opened to the public Wednesday and is scheduled to run for eight months, has drawn criticism from Palestinian officials. They charge that the removal of the ancient artifacts to Israel violates international law and appropriates cultural property that should remain in the West Bank, which the Palestinians seek as part of a future state.

Maintained by Israel as a national park, Herodium is in Area C, the part of the West Bank that remains under full Israeli control and where excavations are supervised by the Israeli military administration.

James Snyder, the museum director, said the material from Herodium is on loan and would be returned to the site after the exhibit closes. He said restoring and showing the finds at the museum was in keeping with the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and with the Hague Convention on protection of cultural property during armed conflict.

"We are but custodians," Snyder said. "This is not about politics or geopolitics. We are trying to do the right thing and preserve the material cultural heritage."

Three years in the making, the exhibit was conceived by Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who directed excavations at Herodium. In 2007, after a decades-long search, he announced that he had found the tomb of Herod, the ruler of Judea from 37 to 4 B.C., whose colossal building projects included the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple.

Netzer wanted the finds exhibited at the Israel Museum, Snyder said. But while surveying the site with museum staffers in 2010, he fell to his death when a safety rail he was leaning on gave way. The exhibit is dedicated to his memory.

Herod's building projects also included the cliff-top fortress of Masada and the port of Caesarea, both major tourist landmarks in Israel. Sophisticated video graphics in the exhibit re-create the grandeur of those projects, along with the fortifications, towers and buildings of Herodium.

Hamdan Taha, director-general of the Palestinian Authority's Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, called the exhibition of the Herodium finds in Israel illegal, noting that Palestinian officials were not consulted before the material was moved.

"Displaying objects uncovered in an archaeological site in the occupied Palestinian state is a violation of international law and the bilateral agreements between Palestine and Israel," he said.

Protocols to the Hague Convention prohibit removal of cultural property from occupied territory. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

But a spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry department that is responsible for the West Bank said it was following inherited Jordanian law there. That law, he said, permits loaning artifacts outside the territory.

Taha said the finds at Herodium were "part of the Palestinian heritage, which includes the different cultural and historical layers, including the figure of King Herod. History is indivisible, and this is part of the cumulative history of this area. Archaeology can play a more constructive role as a bridge between the two peoples, rather than displaying archaeological objects from occupied sites."

Yonathan Mizrachi, an Israeli archeologist with Emek Shaveh, a group that focuses on the role of archaeology in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said the Israel Museum's spotlight on Herodium served efforts by the government and Jewish settlers to appropriate West Bank sites as part of Israel's national heritage.

"The museum can grant legitimacy to the occupation this way, by presenting this as part of Israeli and Jewish heritage," he said. "The message is: This past is ours."

Herodium has been listed as a national heritage site by the Israeli government, and a model of Herod's tomb was dedicated there last year as part of state-funded renovations. The Palestinians, for their part, plan to nominate the area of Herodium and neighboring monasteries for recognition by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a world heritage site.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/191147181_Palestinians_See_Cultural_Theft_In_Israel_s_Herod_Exhibit.html?page=all

Preparing for the fall of Jordan

Preparing for the fall of Jordan

Op-ed: Instead of trying to impose two-state solution, world should help establish stable Palestinian state east of Jordan River

Yoel Meltzer

As the bloodshed in Syria continues with no end in sight, more and more eyes are beginning to focus on Syria's formerly stable southern neighbor, Jordan. After nearly two years of low level protests, the last few months have witnessed not only an upsurge in the amount of protests but also a significant change in the makeup of the protesters themselves.

For starters, Jordan's large Palestinian population, a group which comprises roughly 70% of Jordan's total population, has finally entered the fray with many in this somewhat disenfranchised community openly calling for the king to be ousted. Equally significant, the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that traditionally has been treated well by the king, has also begun to take part in the escalating protest movement. However, unlike the Palestinians, the Muslim Brotherhood is not calling for the king to be toppled but rather for the regime to be reformed. Although they clearly understand that the king is slowly losing his grip on power, tactically it's in their interest to gradually gain control via reforms instead of taking a chance with the all-out chaos that is likely to prevail should the king suddenly fall.

With the post-Mubarak Egypt already in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Hezbollah domination of Lebanon, western and Israeli leaders are understandably concerned about the future in Jordan. The question is, what should they do?

While some will suggest that the king needs to be supported at all costs in order to maintain the relatively peaceful border with Israel, this approach seems short-sighted since it's only a matter of time before the unstoppable events which have been sweeping the region for the last two years will finally bring down the king and end the Hashemite rule in Jordan.

Another option is to simply stand aside and do nothing. However, since the Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to its close association with the king, already has the inside track for gaining power in the post-Hashemite Jordan, and due to the fact that a similar course of action in Egypt backfired and brought Morsi to power, this approach also does not seem to be the most prudent.


Thus, the only logical option is to strengthen the large Palestinian population and to facilitate their rise to power in such a way as to prevent yet another needless civil war and bloodbath in the region. Moreover, by already forging contacts with various Palestinian leaders in Jordan, the seeds can be set for the development of the Arab world's first true democracy. Finally, regarding the king, it's a near certainty that if done peacefully he and his family will be granted asylum in a European capital, a fate infinitely better than that of either Mubarak or Gaddafi.

The question is, will the world sit idly by and allow yet another Arab country, one that is bordered by a warring Syria to the north and an unstable Iraq to the east, to either be taken over by Muslim fundamentalists or to deteriorate into civil war and bloodshed? Or will they spend a tiny fraction of the time and money that is invested in endlessly trying to force Israel to accept the ill-advised and impractical two-state solution to help develop a stable Palestinian state east of the Jordan River, one that can be developed to satisfy the national aspirations of the Palestinians and in doing so finally lay the groundwork for solving the supposedly unsolvable Arab-Israeli conflict?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4348453,00.html

REPORT FROM JERICHO-WHY SHOULD ANYONE IN THE WEST BOYCOTT AHAVA PRODUCTS WHEN PALESTINIANS IN JERICHO ARE SELLING THEM?

REPORT FROM JERICHO-WHY SHOULD ANYONE IN THE WEST BOYCOTT AHAVA PRODUCTS WHEN PALESTINIANS IN JERICHO ARE SELLING THEM?

Rhonda Spivak



While the international pro-Palestinian boycott movement has been actively promoting a boycott of Ahava skin care products for the last couple of years, in Jericho, under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians are not only not boycotting the Ahava products, they are vigourously promoting sales of such products.

In Canada, in the fall of 2011 the boycott movement tried to convince Hudson's Bay in Toronto to take the products off the shelf and took credit for the fact that Ahava products disappeared from the shelves for a while. ( by June 2012, the products were back at the Bay and the Bay claimed that the line was taken down as it was in the process of being rebranded, not due to the boycott). If the boycott movement tries such antics again against Ahava products, they should be asked why it is that a Canadian company ought not carry the products, when the Palestinians themselvesin Jericho are selling them?


When I was in Jericho two weeks ago, the first thing that my Palestinian driver Faisal, wanted to show me in Jericho was the store selling "Ahava products." He was going to take me to see the old city of Jericho, and stopped just outside the entrance way where there is a large store called "Ahava Temptation" in English (see photo). The store was filled to the brim with Ahava products with prices that are all marked in American dollars for tourists to buy. Virtually every tour bus that comes to Jericho is directed into that store, to buy Ahava and other products at prices that are not cheap at all. So, in other words, if the Palestinians are buying Ahava products and making money off them, why should Canadians boycott Ahava?


The main manufacturing plant for Ahava products made with minerals from the dead sea is in in Mitzpe Shalem, a kibbutz located on the Dead Sea, technically over the green line in the West Bank, ( I would venture a guess that many Palestinians work there).

What was also interesting was to see the other amount of Israeli products being sold there. After looking at the Ahava products and also looking at the impressive ruins of old city of Jericho, several Palestinians flagged me down to look at their wares. They were at an outdoor shop just outside the entrance to the archeological ruins of the old city of Jericho . They were trying to sell a few of the same T-shirts at the Ahava Temptations complex but at half the price. A Palestinian vendor showed me the array of T-shirts he was selling, all of which had Hebrew on them. None had Arabic on them-just English and /or Hebrew. I said I wanted a T-shirt that said Palestine on it, but ironically he didn't have any that said Palestine. He showed me one that referred to the Galil on it with Hebrew writing. "Here, this is Palestine," he said. He repeated it. I decided not to start up by telling him that the Galil is Israel, under any recognized international map. It reminded me that a day earlier I had been at the American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem and looked at a new tourism for palestine brochure set out in the lobby, which interestingly enough featured restaurants and accommodations not only in Ramallah, and Bethlehem but also in Nazareth. I noticed that when the brochure referred to places in Nazareth, it generally didn't say "Nazareth Israel" but just Nazareth---as if Israel didn't exist. There was only one time that Nazareth was referred to as Nazareth Israel, and I think that that was because the authors had somehow missed that page and forgotten to delete the word Israel as they had on all the other pages.

I asked the Palestinian vendors selling T-shirts why twenty years after Jericho became the first autonomous area under the Palestinian Authority, he wasn't selling anything other than Israeli made t-shirts. He didn't have an answer.

I asked if he had ever thought of selling a T-shirt with a photo of PA Mahmoud Abbas on it? He responded, "It's too expensive?" I replied, "How expensive could it be--it can't be hard to get a photo of him? It made me begin thinking that throughout the day in Jericho, where we drove through much of the town for several hours,  I hadn't seen one photo or poster of PA President Mahmoud Abbas anywhere. There wasn’t any sign of his popularity from what I could see. In local municipal elections that took place in October 2012, it was reported that preliminary results showed a Fatah win in Jericho (with Hamas boycotting the elections]. Other areas showed Fatah losing to independent candidates, showing a weakened Fatah, and voter discontent with Fatah’s perceived corruption.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9624112/Fatah-claims-Palestinian-election-victory.html


On a final note, I did try to get my driver to take me to the downtown circle of Jericho, with shops frequented by local residents but Palestinian rather than ones catering only to tourists, but my driver clearly did not want to go anywhere near them. He took me very quickly through the circle of the centre of town where there were a fair number of Palestinian policemen stationed (traffic police I think). I wanted to get out and walk around (to see what prices were for locals, not tourists), but Faisal ignored the request. I have been wondering why Faisal only wanted to take me to the Ahava Temptations complex. Could it be because he, and other drivers, gets some sort of kick-back for bringing me there?


http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/article_detail.cfm?id=3292&sec=1&title=REPORT_FROM_JERICHO-WHY_SHOULD_ANYONE_IN_THE_WEST_BOYCOTT_AHAVA_PRODUCTS_WHEN_PALESTINIANS_IN_JERICHO_ARE_SELLING_THEM

OBAMA RUSHING TO ERASE NETANYAHU’S RED LINE

OBAMA RUSHING TO ERASE NETANYAHU’S RED LINE

The White House has announced that Mr. Obama plans to visit Israel in late March. Everyone is wondering about the “real” reason for Obama’s visit because he has been lukewarm to cool toward Israel for a long time.  According to some conjecture, Mr. Obama’s stopover is intended for working sessions on the danger of Iranian nukes and to warn Israel not to strike Iran but instead leave the Iranian nuclear issue to the US.

Many believe, including me, that Mr. Obama wants to negotiate a divided land between Israel and the Palestinians. Perhaps even Palestinian statehood might be discussed.  His itinerary gives a strong clue as to what his plans might be and what he wishes to accomplish.  There are planned visits with not only Israel, but the PA, West Bank and Jordan as well.

Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he and Obama have agreed on three main topics to be discussed during the visit:  Iran’s nuclear program, the volatile situation in Syria and its effects on regional security, and attempts to further the peace process with the Palestinians. But, according to White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Whenever the president and the prime minister speak, and certainly every time the president speaks with Palestinian Authority leaders, these issues come up. This is not the purpose of President Obama’s visit.”

Carney further spun it in this way.  He said the visit is simply time to recognize the second starting terms of both Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Keep in mind that Carney spins the news according to Obama’s directions.  Apparently Obama doesn’t want to be transparent about his visit and doesn’t want to raise expectations or arouse suspicions.


Meanwhile, Israel National News reports, PA leaders said they are looking to Mr. Obama’s trip with hope that it “will lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since 1967.”  So the question is who is telling the truth?  One thing is for certain. Mr. Obama is not visiting Israel to pray at the Kotel or eat falafels or stroll down Ben Yehuda Street.

It seems an attempt is underway to create a smoke and mirror screen in order to hide what I believe is the truth.  President Obama is traveling to Israel for the primary purpose of twisting Prime Minister Netanyahu’s arm until he agrees to give land legitimately belonging to Israel in exchange for the PROMISE of peace.  Apparently Mr. Obama is tired of sending his emissaries who have failed to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians just as all others before them have failed. Failure is a certain outcome when there is only one honorable party at the peace table and Israel is that honorable party.  The Palestinians have never lived up to any of their agreements or promises and Gaza is a prime example. In addition, I also believe President Obama will use his visit to Israel to try to erase the red line drawn by Prime Minister Netanyahu relative to Iran. No doubt Mr. Obama will place significant pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to not strike Iran but instead leave the Iranian problem to America. Of course no sovereign nation would trust their national security to a “friend” with a hidden agenda and for those who will allow themselves to see the truth; Mr. Obama has not proven himself to be a true friend to Israel.  He is a gifted orator and has fooled many into believing otherwise. Those who haven’t studied the issues and fact-checked his speeches would be inclined to believe him a friend of Israel. Israel beware! Don’t be fooled by President Obama’s skilled oratory and great big smile. In the Bible we are warned about “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

According to Israel’s former Ambassador to the United States, Yoram Ettinger, “The March 2013 visit to Israel by Mr. Obama will indicate whether he is determined to learn from history by avoiding, or repeating, critical errors.” 

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/obama-rushing-erase-netanyahu%E2%80%99s-red-line

Arab hatred and Arab identity

Arab hatred and Arab identity

A few weeks ago, the London-based Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat published an article on “The Israel We Do Not Know.” The author, Amal Al-Hazzani, an Associate Professor in King Saud University in Riyadh, argued that it was “sad to say that Israel - the invasive, oppressive, occupying state - lives amongst us but we still do not know it.”

While the article didn’t do much to mend this situation, it apparently generated a lot of negative feedback, and a week later, Al-Hazzani responded by doubling down with a second piece entitled “Know Your Enemy”:

“I would like to thank those who showered me with a torrent of angry correspondence about my previous article on Israel, who accused me of calling for a normalization of relations, promoting the Hebrew language, and glorifying Israeli liberalism.

This response was to be expected because I breached a taboo. However, I am sorry to say to those people, despite my appreciation of their opinions, that their outrage will not change the reality. Israel will remain as it is; a small state but stronger than the rest of the Arab world.”

It’s probably a safe bet to assume that once again, there were a lot of furious reactions.

What I found most striking in Al-Hazzani’s second article is his conclusion, where he writes:

“We must understand the Israelis to know how we compare. Wars cannot be won by sentiments of hatred alone; otherwise the Arabs would have dominated the world long ago.”

One can easily imagine the outcry if any non-Arab wrote in a western media outlet that if wars could be won by hatred alone, “the Arabs would have dominated the world long ago.”

Notice that this is no longer just about Israel.

Yet, it is of course first and foremost a problem for Israel that Arab hatred for the Jewish state – perceived as a western implant in the Arab-Muslim Middle East – is generally ignored by the media.  The conventional and “politically-correct” wisdom is that if only Israel behaved differently, the Arab world would willingly accept the Jewish state.

But every now and then, even media sites that relentlessly push this conventional wisdom provide a perhaps involuntary glimpse of the intensity of Arab hatred for Israel. That happened recently to Ha’aretz when Zvi Bar’el reported on an interview with the Egyptian writer and intellectual Ali Salem. Salem had been shunned by the Egyptian media ever since he traveled to Israel in 1994, but now, almost 20 years later,  Al-Ahram published an interview with him.

According to Bar’el, Salem’s interviewer, Al-Bahaa Hussein, prefaced his piece by stating:

“I cannot allow myself to express satisfaction with Salem’s visit to Israel. Despite the fact that I am impressed by his talents, I am not persuaded that the devils [Israelis] can be good brothers, that they want peace or that they are willing to pay for its price. Nonetheless, we interviewed him not from the standpoint of a judge, as the dust has already settled; instead, we sought to understand his motives.”

Bar’el’s own article begins with a quote from the Al-Ahram interviewer telling Salem:

“When I’m on my own, I still dream of our pushing Israel into the sea.”

Salem responds by dismissing this as an unrealistic and therefore “romantic” idea.

There is much more in Bar’el’s article, but let’s just stay with this for a moment and imagine that the shoe were on the other foot: that a reporter from a respected Israeli paper interviewed an Israeli dissident who presented a lone voice for peace, saying to him: “When I’m on my own, I still dream of our pushing the Palestinians into the sea” – and that the Israeli intellectual would calmly respond that this was an unrealistic and therefore “romantic” idea.

To be sure, Salem emphasizes that “there is no path other than negotiation,” and Bar’el describes him as a “fervent supporter of peace” who “has paid a high price for his ‘crazes’” – because of course among Egyptian intellectuals, you’ll be considered a crazed outcast if you support peace with Israel, while Israeli intellectuals would ostracize anyone who wasn’t a fervent supporter of peace with the Palestinians.
  
Bar’el explains that Salem “remains associated with a term loathed by Egyptian intellectuals: ‘normalization’.” He lists several recent examples illustrating that Egyptian elites remain obsessed with opposing any “normalization” with Israel, among them a resolution adopted in January by an Egyptian writers’ conference at Sharm el-Sheikh which declared:

“Egypt’s identity should be preserved, along with its diverse, enlightened cultural depth; and the principled, consistent position maintained by all Egyptian intellectuals and writers in favor of rejecting any form of normalization with the Zionist enemy should be upheld.”

Mind you: this is a statement from the elites of an Arab country with which we have a peace treaty for more than 30 years now. How long will it take Arab elites to realize that by opposing “normalization” with Israel, they are first and foremost preventing their own countries from becoming normal?

As Bar’el rightly notes:

“The revolution in Egypt has yet to change anything in the way most intellectuals in the country relate to Israel. Liberals, secularists, leftists and rightists − mostly figures seen as being hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood and all religious-tempered political ideologies − view opposition to normalization as a fundamental pillar of their Arab identity ‏(Arab, as opposed to Egyptian‏). This identity still views the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is sometimes described via slogans that had currency in the 1950s ‏(such as “A cancer in the body of the Arab nation”‏), as a political anchor.”

That is definitely noteworthy coming from the veteran Middle Eastern affairs analyst for Ha'aretz: “opposition to normalization” with the region’s most successful modern state is “a fundamental pillar of…Arab identity.”

Of course, the same Zvi Bar’el will usually ignore Arab mainstream hatred for Israel and instead focus on a few widely condemned incidents in Israel to claim spuriously that “A good Jew hates Arabs.”

While racism is present in every society, racist incidents in Israel will often get prominent global coverage. At the same time, the pervasive hatred for Israel in the Arab world that is even championed by the elites is usually politely ignored – which actually reveals the bigotry of the western media. There can be little doubt that it would trigger a veritable tsunami of news coverage and commentary if a gathering of Israeli intellectuals declared its abiding commitment to “the principled, consistent position maintained by all Israeli intellectuals and writers in favor of rejecting any form of normalization with the Arab enemy.”

But supposedly, Arab hatred of Israel is justified because of the unresolved conflict with the Palestinians, who didn’t ask for, and weren’t offered, a state of their own when their Arab brethren were in control of Gaza and the West Bank. Of course, there are countless other examples that illustrate all too well that the Palestinian “cause” is worthwhile only when it can be used to bash Israel. Imagine for a moment how this recent New York Times report would read if Israel was involved:

“The Egyptian military is resorting to a pungent new tactic to shut down the smuggling tunnels connecting Sinai and Gaza: flooding them with sewage. Along with the stink, the approach is raising new questions about relations between Egypt’s new Islamist leaders and their ideological allies in Hamas who control the Gaza Strip.”

If it was not the Egyptian military but the IDF, nobody would dream of describing it rather light-heartedly as “a pungent new tactic.” If it was the IDF, it would be outrageous, indicative of Nazi-like racist contempt, a crime against humanity, a severe health risk, a threat to Gaza’s water supply, and on and on.

But when the Egyptians are doing it, it simply reflects their legitimate determination “to shut the tunnels to block the destabilizing flow of weapons and militants into Sinai from Gaza.”

It’s really something quite normal – and for Egypt’s elites, it’s probably not anything worth obsessing about like “normalization with the Zionist enemy.”

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/arab-hatred-and-arab-identity