My comment at Kristof's Blog is Up

On Bahrain.

Here.

^

Kristof's Scattered Thinking

In his "Is This Apartheid in Bahrain?", Nicholas Kristof not only publishes "A few scattered thoughts about Bahrain" but quite clearly more than enough scattered thinking.

He writes

...Bahrain is modern, moderate and well-educated, and by Gulf standards it has more of the forms of democracy than some others. But here’s my question to King Hamad: Why is it any more appropriate for a minority Sunni population to rule over majority Shia than it was in South Africa for a minority white population to rule over a majority black population? What exactly is the difference?

Indeed, the language of the ruling party sounds a lot to me like the language of white South Africans — or even like the language of white southerners in Jim Crow America, or the language of militant Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

In the first place, in limiting his aspersion to "militant Israeli settlers", he may think (I can still use that term with Kristoff although in a tenable fashion) that his intention is that not all "settlers" are "militant" - which is palpably true. But is that his intention?

Secondly, Bahrain is located in Arabia. Sunnis and Shiites are an internal Islamic theological andf now political problem. The Land of Israel lies outside Arabia although because of Islamic militancy, Arabs expanded their territory and invaded our homeland, conquered it, occupied it and subjugated the Jewsih minority (by then) population. And continued to do so for some 1300 years and then, when the League of Nations recognized our right to reconstitute our national home in its historic borders, Muslim and even Christian Arabs waged a campaign of terror to halt that legal right.

In other words, the language of the oppressed minority in Bahrain may be closer to the language of myself and my fellow revenants residing in Judera and Samaria.

He then writes

The other day I saw a sign reading “Imagine Bahrain without the al-Khalifas.” That kind of thing is utterly inappropriate. The opposition has to do what Nelson Mandela did so brilliantly in South Africa – make clear that majority rule will not lead to persecution of the minority. Every time the democracy movement scrawls “Death to Al-Khalifa” on a sign, it erodes its own legitimacy before the world.

which comes close to explaining why there are "militant settlers" in Judea and Samaria who see and hear and experience what are the true intentions of the Arabs and not only in Judea and Samaria but in Israel as well.

Kristof should learn more about history before he becomes too scattered.

^

Klunking Kristof

Two letters in the NYTimes mocking Kristof's thinking and rationalizing ability, or lack thereof:-

To the Editor:

Re “Waiting for Gandhi,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, July 11):

Instead of all the theatrical media P.R., which Mr. Kristof applauds, the Palestinians could “change history” by sitting down to direct peace talks with the Israelis, fully prepared to negotiate and compromise.

Antonia Tamplin
New York,

•

To the Editor:

In the spirit of nonviolence, Nicholas D. Kristof, an ardent champion of women’s rights and welfare elsewhere in the world, imagines “1,000 women” allowing themselves “to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested” with “hundreds more women marched in to replace those hauled away” as a public relations strategy for the Palestinians.

Wouldn’t it be better for the Palestinians to elect those “female pacifists” as their leaders who could then work with their Israeli counterparts to bring peace and security to both nations?

Stanley Caroff
Moorestown, N.J.

- - -

My Comment at Kristof's Blog

Here:

Kristof goes almost esctatic: " imagine if Palestinians stopped the rock-throwing and put female pacifists in the lead. What if 1,000 women sat down peacefully on a road to block access to an illegal Jewish settlement built on Palestinian farmland? What if the women allowed themselves to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested without a single rock being thrown?"

Well, let's first imagine women in Arab society having freedom, equality and treated with a bit of secular liberalism. Let's imagine no honorcide killings of women who must die for the family's sake for flirting. Let's imagine no female suicide bombers. Let's imagine no rapes of Christian women in Behtlehem.

There's a lot to imagine. Unfortunately, Kristof is not imagining but fantisizing.

- - -

So, Maybe It Was Rachel Corrie's Fault?

It seems that women have been in front of Israeli bulldozers before - and, unlike Rachel Corrie, escaped unscathed:-

Most Palestinian demonstrations are overwhelmingly male, but in Budrus women played a central role. They were led by Mr. Morrar’s quite amazing daughter, Iltezam Morrar. Then 15, she once blocked an Israeli bulldozer by diving in front of it (the bulldozer retreated, and she was unhurt).

So, perhaps it was Rachel Corrie's fault, or negluigence, or that of the ISMers with her that got her killed?


P.S. Catch this there:-

Most of the marchers were Palestinians, but some were also Israeli Jews and foreigners who support the Palestinian cause. They chanted slogans and waved placards as photographers snapped photos. At first the mood was festive and peaceful, and you could glimpse the potential of this approach.

But then a group of Palestinian youths began to throw rocks at Israeli troops. That’s the biggest challenge: many Palestinians define “nonviolence” to include stone-throwing.

Soon after, the Israeli forces fired volleys of tear gas at us, and then charged. The protesters fled, some throwing rocks backward as they ran. It’s a far cry from the heroism of Gandhi’s followers, who refused even to raise their arms to ward off blows as they were clubbed.

(I brought my family with me on this trip, and my kids experienced the gamut: we were stoned by Palestinian kids in East Jerusalem, and tear-gassed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank.)

Actually, the tear-gassing only occurred because the Pals. initated the stonethrowing
so Kristoff has only the Pals. to fault in both instances.




- - -

Kristof Realizes He Isn't Perfect

Nicholas Kristof finally got my point when he wrote:

By all means, go talk to settlers,

But he never had, never does and I don't think he ever will.

He's afraid of the truth, or afraid he'll be proven wrong.

That's bad news for a NYTimes reporter.



- - -

More Kristof Kookiness

From his column:

Hamas may have lost popularity since the election in 2006 and since my last visit (2008). This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Israeli policies, but rather with weariness with Hamas’s Islamism, nuttiness and intolerance. Antics like Hamas’s attacks on summer camps for kids are emblematic of how the group antagonizes ordinary people. People are just tired of Hamas, and if Israel would stay out of the picture there’s some hope Hamas could eventually be displaced.

Now, if he could only persuade Hamas not to initiate, back and support terror attacks against Israel and to release Gild Shalit, well, then Kristof could be useful.

Instead of being one of those 'useless idiots' that populate the pages of the NYTimes.

- - -

Endangering the Health of a Minor

From N. Kristof's Facebook:

Nicholas D. Kristof:

Somebody asked my 16-yr-old son what he had enjoyed most about Israel so far. Old City of Jerusalem? Dead Sea? Masada? No, he said, the best part had been being tear gassed with me while covering a demonstration in the West Bank town of Bil'in on Friday. I guess a family that is tear gassed together stays together.

- - -

Roger Cohen Keeps Getting Tougher

In his column today, among other things, he suggest the scenario of a normalization with Iran that

...notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.

Of course, past Iranian statements regarding Israel such as

Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

and

Ahmadinejad last week called Israel a "dirty microbe" and "savage animal", as Iran stepped up its rhetoric against the Jewish state..."World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region," the Iranian president said.

Cohen ignores. Why one set is valid and the other not?

Anyway, Cohen continues and gets to Israel which he accuses as being able to derail any such deal:

...It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads.

Weapons, if they exist, that do not threaten anyone, except states like Iran which have made it clear they want to eliminate Israel.

And them Cohen quotes none other than Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who thinks that

“a combination of ignorance and arrogance” under the Bush administration squandered countless diplomatic opportunities with Iran and so allowed it to forge ahead with its nuclear program.

and what does ElBaradei say?

“Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran...I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”

which leads Cohen to draw this conclusion:

To avoid that nightmare Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It’s time.

Tough, echoing Nicholas Kristof, his fellow NYTimes columnist.

Who says there's no plaigerism at the NYT?


P.S. Just saw this letter there at the NYT:

Roger Cohen raises the legitimate question of when, if ever, Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons. He also reasonably suggests that the United States should engage in negotiations with Iran on this issue, despite the fact that the Europeans have made no progress in such negotiations for several years.

But one might question why Mr. Cohen could not make these points without severely criticizing Israel and making the inflammatory suggestion that its leaders are attempting to manipulate American policy.

Michael Gewirtz, New York

Kristoff's Chill

In his op-ed today, Nicholas Kristoff chills us:-

President Bush’s problem was that he loved Israel too much. He embraced Israeli leaders even when they responded to provocations by killing more than 1,300 people in Gaza, according to Gaza health officials — in retaliation for shelling that had killed fewer than 30 Israelis since it began in 2001.

Now, he should have considered this:

a) how does one respond to an out-and-out attempt to kill as many civilians as possible? what methods would he suggest if he had been the target of these attacks?

b) were the firings of rockets at civilians just "provocations" - or perhaps war crimes?

c) what should the Gazans, either government or populace, done in response to Israel's evacuation of communities and expulsion of the population thereof?

He quotes this peacenik:

“You have a complete breakdown of trust: ‘It’s my toy!’ ‘No, it’s my toy!’ ” said David Rosen, the former chief rabbi of Ireland, now based in Jerusalem as head of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. “We need someone who can move the parties beyond their own pain and vulnerability.”

and goes on

There are two major ways in which the Obama administration can do that.

First, it must push to reduce the misery in Palestinian territories. A peace deal with the Palestinians is not possible today, partly because the Palestinians themselves are bitterly divided between Fatah and Hamas. But nothing can be done anywhere as long as scenes of Gaza suffering are unfolding on television screens. [well, does Israel, besides dealing with the humanitarian situation, have to then wait until hamas and Fatah fight it out and then see with who it needs to make peace?]

That means that Israel must lift the siege of Gaza, completely opening the crossings. If Hamas resumes its unconscionable rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, then bomb the tunnels or strike Hamas targets in a proportional way, but don’t escalate. [thanks Nic, but we did that already and you still didn't like it]

Mr. Obama should also insist on a complete halt of settlement activity on the West Bank, and on an easing of the West Bank checkpoints that make life wretched for Palestinians. All that would also bolster moderates in the Palestinian Authority, making an eventual deal more likely. [can we stop all settlement activity of Arabs in israel as a quid pro quo?]

Second, the United States should focus on a peace deal between Syria and Israel. With a Palestinian deal impossible for the time being, the path forward is to try to peel Syria away from Iran. [try? oh, really now. that's a gamble we don't presume is doable] If that strategy succeeded, Iran’s subversive influence would be reduced, Hamas might be moderated, and there would be momentum for further gains. [if? if? and if not?]

Best Letter to the Editor Of The Day

Here's my pick:

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof (“Gaza Boomerang,” column, Jan. 8) claims that Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza is not justified because it has killed more than 660 people as opposed to the 20 Israelis killed by Hamas rockets.

Perhaps the fact that Israel looks to protect its citizens with sirens and bomb shelters while Hamas, in turn, shelters itself by hiding among innocent civilians has more to do with the resulting death tolls than the actual force used.

While Israel goes out of its way to minimize loss of innocent life, it seems that Hamas values its own citizens less than the Israelis do.

Shayna Goldberg
Bergenfield, N.J.

But I would have zeroed in on this bit by Kristof:

I visited Gaza last summer and found many Palestinians ambivalent in a way that Americans and Israelis often don’t appreciate. Many Gazans scorn Fatah as corrupt and incompetent, and they dislike Hamas’s overzealousness and repression. But when they are suffering and humiliated, they find it emotionally satisfying to see Hamas fighting back.

If Arabs are seeking emotional satisfaction - and, I presume, emotional stimulation - then we can forget about peace, coexistence and rational discourse in international relations.

And If Kristof views this as a plausible element in the Middle Easy equation, he's more stupid than the average NYTimes' op-ed columnists.

Kristof: 'Otherizing' Obama

Nicholas Kristof is concerned and worried.

In his The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama, he claims that

What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

The result is this campaign to “otherize” Mr. Obama. Nobody needs to point out that he is black, but there’s a persistent effort to exaggerate other differences, to de-Americanize him.

He explains:

Here’s a sad monument to the sleaziness of this presidential campaign: Almost one-third of voters “know” that Barack Obama is a Muslim or believe that he could be. In short, the political campaign to transform Mr. Obama into a Muslim is succeeding. The real loser as that happens isn’t just Mr. Obama, but our entire political process.

A Pew Research Center survey released a few days ago found that only half of Americans correctly know that Mr. Obama is a Christian. Meanwhile, 13 percent of registered voters say that he is a Muslim, compared with 12 percent in June and 10 percent in March.

More ominously, a rising share — now 16 percent — say they aren’t sure about his religion because they’ve heard “different things” about it.

But he makes clear:

To his credit, Mr. McCain himself has never raised doubts about Mr. Obama’s religion. But a McCain commercial last month mimicked the words and imagery of the best-selling Christian “Left Behind” book series in ways that would have set off alarm bells among evangelicals nervous about the Antichrist.

Mr. McCain himself is not popular with evangelicals. But they will vote for him if they think the other guy may be on Satan’s side.

Of course, all the other problems Obama's history and religion presents to the vote is glossed over.