The New York Times' Week in Review recently contained a long oped column by Efraim Karsh, a British academic well-known for his rightwing opinions about the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. Most of the column focuses on historical and contemporary divisions in the Muslim world, or on what Karsh calls "incessant infighting within the House of Islam, which has never ceased."
It is not hard to detect that Karsh's real purpose is to argue for an American military attack on Iran and an end to the Obama administration's "imperious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict," his way of characterizing the administration's woefully weak efforts to bring about a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apparently, however, the Times failed to notice both the obvious inconsistency and badly misleading nature of Karsh's argument. When Karsh is arguing for a hardline on Iran, his argument about Muslim internal divisions serves his purpose, since it supports his assertion that "they would be unlikely to rush to Iran's aid in the event of sanctions, or even a military strike." Indeed, he claims, "most other Muslim countries would be quietly relieved to see the extremist regime checked."
But when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suddenly the Muslim world is united in refusing to accept the existence of Israel: "Muslim states threaten Israel's existence not so much out of concern for the Palestinians, but rather as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the House of Islam....Any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is far less important than a regional agreement in which every Islamic nation can make peace with the idea of Jewish statehood in the House of Islam....And that, depressingly, is going to be a lot harder to pull off...."
The wording is sufficiently ambiguous (no doubt deliberately so) to allow Karsh to deny that he is dissembling -- but can there be any doubt that he means readers to believe that the Muslim states of the Middle East are united in refusing to accept the existence of Israel? Just which Muslim states can Karsh have in mind? As I've discussed in a previous blog, Egypt and Jordan long ago reached peace agreements that formally accept the existence of Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and ever since 1988 Yasir Arafat and his PLO successors and present governors of the West Bank have repeatedly said that they would accept the same terms. And there is increasing evidence that even Hamas in Gaza would not challenge a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
That doesn't leave many others in "the House of Islam." It is an established fact that since the 1990s Syria has repeatedly sought a formal peace agreement with Israel, provided it withdrew from the Golan Heights, Syrian territory conquered and occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. And since 1982 Saudi Arabia has repeatedly and publicly offered Israel peace and normalized relations with the Arab world, conditioned on the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories it conquered in 1967 and a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, the Saudis have successfully convinced the rest of the Arab world to endorse such an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, for in 2007 the twenty-two states of the Arab League unanimously endorsed the Saudi peace plan.
So who's left in the Islamic world? Well, of course Karsh wants to focus on Iran--that is, a single state. Anyway, Karsh's argument doesn't even work very well for Iran, for it is far from obvious that Iran poses a genuine threat to the existence to Israel, as opposed to a rhetorical one, nasty as that is; it is often overlooked that even the present Iranian government has said it would go along with an overall settlement if the Palestinians did so.
In short, it is not just that Karsh's argument is self-contradictory, it is demonstrably false. Too bad the New York Times didn't notice.
http://www.fatherdave.net/pappe
Thank you once again for holding the toes of the MSM to the fire. I am fascinated always by how pieces, books, appearances intersect. Last year I found Ghada Karmi's interesting book of her life (In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story, 2002), which included how her family lost their home described as in "mandatory Palestine," before moving to the UK. On the Electronic Intifada website there also is a piece by Ali Abunimah about Ghada & her former family home in the Qatamon neighborhood, which is now unbelievably being occuped (its upper story, built later) by none other than the NYT Jerusalem Bureau's Bronner. It that were not enough, the NYT made the purchase in 1984 with none other than Thomas Friedman as acting on behalf of the paper. A person can always point fingers at the "vested interests" in the MSM, but I didn't know it was quite this literal.
First of all, your piece starts with a logical fallacy. Arabs can have their own rivalries but also unite against a common enemy. Jihad is mentioned time and again by some radical Muslim leaders with that purpose. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - that sums it all.
Second, Jordan and Egypt have peace agreements with Israel. But there are more than 20 other Arab countries that do not even consider Israel to be a State. That is the "House of Islam" - all the Arabian Peninsula, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and even the Muslim states of Central Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.).
You cannot seriously consider Syria to be interested in peace while at the same time it arms and supports Hezbollah and publicly support the Iranian regime, highly hostile to Israel.
The essential characteristic is complete disregard for even the most obvious facts. In refuting Karsh's argument that the "House of Islam" is unified in its desire to destroy Israel, I pointed out that all twenty-two states of the Arab League had agreed to a Saudi-Arab League peace plan that would lead to full diplomatic recognition and normalized state-to-state relations, in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and a two-state peace settlement with the Palestinians.
What is Shotai's response to that fact? Nothing. He/she feels quite free to disregard it and simply repeat the same old dreary mythology.
Syria in particular: No one in Israel with any knowledge of the repeated offers of Syria for a peace settlement doubts that Syria wants a settlement if Israel fully withdraws from the Golan Heights. For over a decade Israel's leading generals have supported such a settlement, in recognition that the security gains to Israel of a peace agreement would far outweigh the miniscule advantages of "holding the high ground" in the Golan Heights.
Either you have no knowledge of these FACTS or you are purposely seeking to omit the truth to readers.
Regarding your reply:
You miss the point of the Saudi initiative: it treats a requirement as the final reward. Recognition of Israel's right to exist is the b requirement to start any negotiations. How can you negotiate an agreement with someone that you don't even acknowledge that you exist? Israel is willing to sit with any Arab country willing to hold negotiations, including the Arab League, at any time. Why don't they accept to sit and talk? Besides, it is hard to believe in the truth of that proposal when you see the extremist anti-Israel tone of many of these Arab leaders.
Second, Israel has shown time and again, with Egypt Jordan that its government will not miss any real opportunities of peace. When Egypt showed serious interest in a peace agreement, Israel quickly withdrew from Sinai. With Syria, the situation is completely different. There are no guarantees of security from the Syrian regime, sympathetic to provocative Iran. The Golan is a strategic asset that can only be returned when REAL security guarantees are given. Judging from Hezbollah's reaction after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and Hamas' reaction after Gaza's withdrawal (both groups have overt support from the Syrian government), nobody can seriously expect Syria to be a reliable partner.
OPINION as in opinion, as in every one has one.
Theres also a nice OpEd from Gadaffi and all sorts of points of view, this year at the NYT.
duh.
At least they present it as opinion, not news. Which that could be said of other outlets.
They've had Wolfowitz and Feith, both high-ranking officials, and both Jewish Americans, opine at length on the necessity of the Iraq war.
The destruction of Iraq as a modern, wealthy, oil-producing state was a prime object of Israel through the years, and getting the Americans to do it, and pay for it, seems to have been job #1. Many influential Americans with ties to Israel of one kind or another were willing to use their influence to that end. The NY Times was just one more tool to be used.
Watch out for the second act! - IRAN!
Moderators, I'm being sarcastic....
not all but definitely AIPAC as a whole entity qualifies for pushing one war after other...
Aren't op-ed pieces intended to convey the OPINIONS of the those who write them?
Isn't that why they sign their names to them?
If I were to write an oped that in my opinion Israel killed 300,000 Palestinians in its attack on Gaza, I'm pretty sure the Times wouldn't print it.
No offense, but looking at the resumes of each (Karsh, Slater) I would say Karsh may be better informed on Middle East studies.
Just because certain Muslim countries have accepted a peace with Israel, does not mean that the country nor people are accepted. Why don't you mention how many Muslim countries prohibit entry to anyone who has visited Israel and has the stamp on their passport? That would be a fact, not an opinion. Why don't you cite polls, which show Arabs have very poor opinions of Jews across the Middle East, with the highest rating by Israeli Arabs themselves.
We will look forward to your response in the NYT, or not.
Jerome Slater,
Thanks for the breath of fresh air! I wish it were only the NYT. The caliber of our journalistic establishment is sinking to an ever new low.
Does anyone else remember this lovely example of doublethink:
We weren't aiming at that house, and we hit it because we spotted someone trying to shoot at us.
How about this one...
We must attack Iran because they are a threat to us.
" Respected Danish journalist admits 'I was a Mossad agent'
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153850.html
of course they did...anyone remember Iraq white-wash?