Israel — VOICES for REASON

Last month in Washington D.C., ARC hosted a symposium to explore American foreign policy in the post-9/11 decade. For those who were unable to attend live or to watch the live streamed video, below are the videos of the three panel discussions.

Upheavals in the Middle East: Assessing the political landscape

The Islamist Threat: From AfPak to Jyllands-Posten and Times Square

Iran, Israel and the West

At the United Nations this week, the Palestinians will ask for — and possibly get — endorsement for their own independent state. But first, a quick reality check on what a Palestinian state means. This seven-part report from the Middle East Media Research Institute documents the rule of Hamas since it took over Gaza — in a bloody civil war — four years ago. To draw a brief sketch: Hamas has arbitrarily seized private land and bulldozed homes; censored the press; mocked freedom of assembly; killed political opponents (including those accused of “collaboration” with Israel); exploited civilians and private homes as human shields for armaments; imposed sharia law; and colluded in and carried out rocket attacks on Israel. And so the Islamists of Hamas have followed in the footsteps of the rival faction, the Fatah/PLO, which under Yasser Arafat had built up a horrifically repressive dictatorial regime. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose faction nominally has authority over parts of the West Bank, is known to celebrate suicide bombers, even honoring terrorists by naming streets after them.

For Palestinian leaders to demand a state of their own in order to sanctify their tyrannical rule is perverse.

It has been a decade since the Sept. 11 attacks shocked and angered our nation. What lessons have we learned since then? ARC will be hosting a symposium on this subject, titled “Sept. 11—A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future,” on September 8, in Washington, D.C. The program will feature three panel discussions, presenting a range of viewpoints.

If you can’t make this event, it will also be streamed live over the web starting at 1p.m. ET.

Check out the panel topics and speakers on the event’s site. You can also watch the live stream of the event from there.

On ARC’s Facebook page, you can read, watch, and listen to ARI’s numerous efforts throughout the last decade to push for an egoist foreign policy that puts the lives and individual rights of Americans first.

Fouad Ajami, a canny scholar of the Middle East, observes in today’s WSJ that “The [UN] General Assembly may, in September, vote to ratify a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.” But that would be a hollow victory, he argues, because the Palestinians are far from having established the political institutions needed for a state. Ajami here draws a useful historical contrast with the establishment of Israel, which “was a fait accompli perhaps a decade before that [1947 UN] vote” thanks to the extensive development of political institutions.

The gist of his case is that the Palestinian movement was led astray by the likes of Arafat and the nursing of false hopes. The article is well worth reading, and it prompts questions that deserve serious consideration:

Is it right to hold the Palestinians blameless for accepting murderers like Arafat and Hamas as leaders of their cause?

Is it right to hold Palestinians blameless for accepting horrific goals (e.g. the wiping out of Israel) and means (e.g. rocket attacks, terrorist bombings) that Arab and Muslim leaders have encouraged, financed, and celebrated for decades?

There remains a crucial point: are there any grounds left for taking seriously the stated goal of the Palestinian cause — a peaceful, prosperous national homeland — given its history?

My answers: no; no; and, it beggars belief.

Drawing on some of the information in the Wikileaks cache, this funny video from Mere Rhetoric captures the absurd, Ostrich-like evasiveness of America’s longstanding policy in the Middle East. It’s parody, but mostly accurate — and therefore, unnerving.

In some quarters of the foreign policy establishment, it’s an article of faith that the central problem in the Middle East is Israel’s (alleged) injustices against the Palestinians. That premise has shaped American policy for decades. But it’s wrong, in many ways. Iran is the key problem. It has been for years. Some of the documents in the Wikileak cache are confirming that fact. File this under obscene, but not surprising: one cable reports how Iran smuggled arms to Hezbollah in ambulances. Another cable reports that even the Saudi regime—which backs Islamist groups and undercuts U.S. interests—even the Saudis recognize that Iran is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

When will we?

Dispelling misconceptions about the Arab/Israeli conflict is a focus of Efraim Karsh’s writings, and in his oped in today’s NYT, he brings to a wider audience key facts about the character of self-professed Arab champions of the Palestinian cause. He lays out a historical case that Arab states — who routinely jockey to be seen as advancing Palestinian goals — have in reality exploited that cause for their own power-seeking ends.

Agreeing with the thrust of Karsh’s article, I’d add this point: even if these backers had been genuine in their motivations and truly sought to serve the cause, that too would be deplorable. From my reading of the issue, the Palestinian movement has at its root an antipathy to Western political values, such individual freedom, and it has pioneered in the vile tactic of terrorism. Regimes that back that movement, for whatever reason, are complicit in its aggression.

(I explore the Palestinian movement and its goals in a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In chapter seven of Winning the Unwinnable War, I touch on a prevailing dynamic in Mideast politics that sheds light on what motivates contemporary backers of the Palestinians (e.g., Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia).)

Since Israel forcibly intercepted ships heading to Gaza with “humanitarian” aid, the choir of condemnation has shrieked in unison — from the UK, and most of the European continent, across the Atlantic to the bowels of the U.N. But putting aside questions on the laws governing international waters, was Israel morally right to prevent the ships from reaching Gaza? Yes–I’d argue it was fully within its rights to enforce the naval blockade on Gaza.

To judge Israel’s actions, it is crucial to recognize the broader context: the Gaza strip is under the control of Hamas, a totalitarian Islamist group, that is at war with Israel. Allowing arms, money, and other forms of aid to enter Hamas-controlled Gaza means allowing a sworn enemy to be sustained and strengthened to fight on. And a state facing that situation is entitled to thwart attempts to aid its enemy.

P.S. A word on the blockade itself. My view is that Israel is entitled to seal Gaza off from the world. Is that the most efficient means of thwarting, let alone minimizing, the threat from Hamas? I doubt it — in part because exceptions are often made for so-called humanitarian supplies. Should Israel act assertively to remove the Islamist group from power and dismantle its infrastructure in the Palestinian territories? That’s a point I’ve argued in other places.

The Goldstone Report on the 2008/09 Gaza war brings to light genuine horrors — not pertaining to Israel’s conduct in the war, but horrors indicative of the U.N.’s basic character.

What events led up to the Gaza war? Perhaps it had something to do with the 10,000+ rockets and mortars fired into Israeli towns from Gaza during an eight-year period. But that salient fact is given no weight in the report. The report actually seems to be calculated to absolve Hamas of guilt for its aggression, while smearing Israel for “war crimes” for defending itself. E.g. the report cites an admission by a Hamas official that the Islamist group “created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machines” — but dismisses that admission in concluding that Hamas did not exploit human beings as shields. Facts in the report appear to have been bent into submission to advance a pro-Hamas agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

In its endorsement of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council described Israel’s retaliation as a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population….” The idea that only a “proportionate” response would be appropriate has its roots in Just War Theory, the mainstream view of morality in war. So does the related injunction to avoid injuring civilians — even to the point of risking a mission to do so. It is a measure of the deep entrenchment of Just War Theory, that not only do the accusers accept it unquestioningly, but so does the accused.

Observe that Israel refused to participate in the Goldstone investigation and has vehemently criticized the report, yet its ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told PBS’s NewsHour:

Read the rest of this entry »

If you’ll be in the Boston area in early July, consider attending the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist summer conference. Voices for Reason writers Tom Bowden, Onkar Ghate and Elan Journo will all be speaking on topics of interest for pro-reason, pro-individual rights advocates. Read the rest of this entry »