Love of the Land: Ha'aretz, Holier Than the Pope

Ha'aretz, Holier Than the Pope

YG
CAMERA/Snapshots
04 May '10

Ha'aretz's reaction to the visit of an Israeli Arab delegation with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi revealed just how tenuous the media outlet's grip on reality is. The delegation's harsh condemnation by those on the right of the Israeli political spectrum was apparently too much for the editors of Ha'aretz, who promptly spoke out to defend the Arab delegation and to attack those who dared criticize it.

An April 30 editorial ("Arab MK's Libya Trip a Path to Mideast Peace") stated:

Hysteria gripped the right wing in the Knesset after an Arab delegation of MKs and dignitaries visited Libya. . . .The tongues of Habayit Hayehudi and National Union, two parties that could unite under the name "the Racist Union," were abruptly unleashed as though they were dealing with an unparalleled act of treason. . .
Libya is not on the list of enemy states. . . Libya signed the Arab League's peace initiative, holds the League's rotating presidency, and its ruler Muammar Gadhafi maintains excellent relations with the U.S. administration.

Following the depiction of Libya as one of the most important and enlightened countries in the world, the editorial writer explains to us, the ignorant readers, the motive and the justice of the Israeli Arab visit:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Ha'aretz, Holier Than the Pope

RubinReports: NY Times: Last Week Explains How Iran Getting the Bomb is Good for America; This Week Explains How the Qadhafi Regime is Good for Libya

NY Times: Last Week Explains How Iran Getting the Bomb is Good for America; This Week Explains How the Qadhafi Regime is Good for Libya

By Barry Rubin

Nowadays, nothing is too ridiculous to say about the Middle East, especially in the New York Times. Following up running an op-ed explaining how Iran getting nuclear weapons would be good for the United States (the scariest part is that the author works for the U.S. Air Force) the once-great newspaper of broken record now gives us a long article about how great the Libyan regime and son-of-Qadhafi are. Here you can see the pattern that prevails elsewhere: taking for granted as truth the lies that dictatorial regimes and radical movements tell while endlessly explaining that just about everyone in the world except Usama bin Ladin is a moderate.

Clearly, the newspaper has learned nothing from its coverage--which at the time won a Pulitzer but is now viewed as shameful--of all the wonderful features of the Stalinist regime in the USSR during the 1930s.

RubinReports: NY Times: Last Week Explains How Iran Getting the Bomb is Good for America; This Week Explains How the Qadhafi Regime is Good for Libya

RubinReports: UK-Libya Relations: Release Terrorist, Make Oil Deal, Train…Terrorists?

UK-Libya Relations: Release Terrorist, Make Oil Deal, Train…Terrorists?

By Barry Rubin

First the British government released a Lockerbie terrorist, despite his having killed so many people, as part of an oil deal with Libya. Now, according to a credible report, the British army will be training the elite forces of dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the same man who almost certainly ordered the Lockerbie bombing and many other terrorist attacks.

So reports the Daily Telegraph. Since early this year, the British army has been training Libyan Special Forces. The newspaper notes that Libya has also armed the IRA with guns and explosives in launching terror attacks against Britain in the past. The leak comes from British soldiers who are disgusted with this policy.

There could be arguments for this kind of activity in some cases. The British army could be trying to teach Libyan soldiers to behave better, seeking to build bridges for a closer relationship, or even recruiting intelligence agents.

The British government might well see this connection as shielding their country from terrorism at Libya’s hands. Let them go kill citizens of some other place. This is a frequently seen European policy in the past. Starting in the 1960s, archival documents show, the British government made nice to Fatah and the PLO politically in order to buy immunity, while France and Italy had policies in later decades of letting terrorist groups operate within their territory as long as they only attacked those outside of it.

But with the mercurial (a polite word for bizarre and psychopathic) as leader, it is unlikely that this will lead to anything good. Probably these skills will be put to use in future for carrying out terror attacks and training people from other countries to do so, possibly even against Britain.

RubinReports: UK-Libya Relations: Release Terrorist, Make Oil Deal, Train…Terrorists?

RubinReports: How Not to Moderate Radicals: The UK, Libya, Prisoner Releases, and Oil Deals

How Not to Moderate Radicals: The UK, Libya, Prisoner Releases, and Oil Deals

By Barry Rubin

The scandal of Britain releasing a Libyan terrorist who helped kill 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in exchange for an oil deal continues to build. But I want to focus on some details of the issue that shed light on…well, just about everything concerning Western relations with the Middle East.

First, in a damaging interview, UK Justice Minister Jack Straw admitted that the oil deal was “a very big part” of the prisoner deal. This in itself is shocking. Straw is known for being too free with his mouth and this time opened it large enough for his foot to enter firmly therein.

The interesting part is how Straw justifies such behavior:

“I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP [British Petroleum] deal.”

Of course, we know that what goes on with trade—and this applies to Syria, Iran, and other “rogue” states is not to make moderation but to make money. But here are the other problems.

First, Libya, of course, is still an extremist state. . So the “moderation” through concession policy has failed repeatedly.

Only in the last week dictator Muammar Qadhafi blamed Israel for all the woes of the Africa continent and threatened Switzerland because it dare send police when his visiting son beat up two servants.

Second, regarding Switzerland, that country backed down on the incident in the face of Libyan demands. Surrender and concession is also a big part of the “moderation” strategy. But in the context of Middle Eastern social psychology and political culture, such behavior only emboldens the radicals, which is also what’s happening. And this leads naturally to the next point.

Read All at :

RubinReports: How Not to Moderate Radicals: The UK, Libya, Prisoner Releases, and Oil Deals

RubinReports: Cultural Watch: Great Moments in Syrian Cinema; Qadhafi Meets the Real Cuckoo Clock

Cultural Watch: Great Moments in Syrian Cinema; Qadhafi Meets the Real Cuckoo Clock

By Barry Rubin

A MEMRI story arrives on the new government-controlled Syrian television series—also on Iranian and Hizballah television—showing how Jews plot world conquest while snacking on murdered children.

Although the MEMRI story doesn’t reveal the surprise ending of the new Syrian television series, my sources tell me that it’s this: The Zionists plan the atomic bomb attacks on Japan in 1945 as part of their murderous efforts. That’s not a joke.

In response to my telling him about this, an Arabic-speaking reader notes another Syrian film he once saw. Here’s the plot:

“The eldest son of the family died and everybody was heartbroken. Shortly afterwards the father of the family died and everybody was distraught. For a moment, they were directionless fearing that their enemies may destroy them.

“But then the second son took hold of the reins and everybody was happy again.

“Hmmmmm..... What could that mean............?”

Of course, my correspondent knew precisely how the plot was put together. The Assad family has ruled Syria for almost 40 years. The eldest son (Basil, not Sonny) ran his sports car into a bridge abutment (though in the other film, the rival mob got him at a toll both), the father (dictator Hafiz, not Vito), died.

But then the second son (Bashar, not Michael) came to power.

Or as the song in The Producers, “Springtime for Hitler” put it (slightly modified):

“[Syria] was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me.”

And since then it’s been springtime for Bashar and Syria. But there was a controversy in the film: It was the first Syrian film to show an actual kiss. This set off a big debate. As my correspondent puts it:

“Apparently the local authorities were outraged. Jews drinking children's blood? No problems.

A kissing scene? Scandal! Outrage!”

And he concludes quite accurately: “True story. That's the thing about Syria. Anything you made up wouldn't be as bizarre as what actually goes on.”

Meanwhile, as aspiring Syrian filmmakers plan future productions of “Citizen Bashar,” “How the Golan Was Won,” and “West Beirut Story,” Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi continues to pack in the audiences with his Borad impressions.

Read All at :

RubinReports: Cultural Watch: Great Moments in Syrian Cinema; Qadhafi Meets the Real Cuckoo Clock

RubinReports: Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal

Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal

By Barry Rubin

On the face of it, growing evidence that the British government released a terrorist who murdered 270 people in exchange for an oil deal is shockingly loathsome.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Here’s the worst of it: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was not a free-lance terrorist but a Libyan intelligence officer. And the bombing of the Lockerbie plane was a large-scale operation, ordered and organized by the Libyan government and, first and foremost, its madcap dictator Muammar Qadhafi.

So Britain didn’t just release a murderer in exchange for a good oil deal, it released a murderer who had shielded his Mafia kingpin—Qadhafi—so that London could make a deal with the chief terrorist himself, who is soon to arrive at the UN as an honored speaker. Moreover, Megrahi, far from deserving any compassion, had refused to cooperate with the investigation all along. He “took the rap” but then helped make it impossible to catch and punish those most responsible.

Or to put it another way, Britain released a foot soldier who was a cog in the terrorist implementation team in order to make a deal with the man directly responsible for ordering the murders of 270 passengers and many other acts of terrorism, too.

True, it can be pointed out that lots of countries deal with Libya and that Qadhafi's decision to abandon his secret nuclear weapons' program was an element in ending the sanctions against Libya. But part of the price for Libya's escape from isolation was the turning over of Megrahi. So the message is consistent with other Western actions: In the end, we will give you what you want without your having to give up anything (or much).

(My scenario: Tell Megrahi he will never get out and will die in prison unless he spills the beans on the involvement of Qadhafi and other Libyan leaders in the attack. Even then, though, he probably wouldn't say anything. Why, ideological loyalty? No, probably the fact that his family back in Libya would face a pretty grim fate if he told the truth.)

Read All at :

RubinReports: Blood for Oil: Yes, Britain Did Release a Mass-Murdering Terrorist in Exchange for an Oil Deal