Question for Robert Wright: Is Islamophobia Justifiable Within the Gay Community?

In his New York Times "Opinionator" blog of today's date entitled "Islamophobia and Homophobia" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/islamophobia-and-homophobia/?hp#preview), Robert Wright compares these two phenomena.

Query for Mr. Wright: Is Islamophobia justifiable within the gay community?

Consider that In Saudi Arabia homosexuality is punishable by public execution.

In Iran homosexuals are publicly hanged, and since 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran has executed some 4,000 gay men.

Homosexuality is also punishable by death in Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen and Gaza. Regarding Gaza, there is currently a legal proceeding in the Israeli courts involving a gay man from Gaza living in Israel, who is fighting deportation back to Gaza, where he faces execution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm).

In Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria and the Maldives, homosexuality is "only" punishable by imprisonment or corporal punishment.

Your answer, Mr. Wright?

[Those readers from Ankara, who were infuriated by my prior blog entry, can indeed be proud that homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey.]

Robert Wright's "A One-to-Two-State Solution": Again Wright Has It All Wrong

In a New York Times column entitled "A One-to-Two-State Solution" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/a-one-to-two-state-solution/?hp), Robert Wright argues that if West Bank and Gazan Palestinians were to demand Israeli voting rights, moderate Israelis would be roused from their torpor regarding peace talks. As might be expected, the premise of Robert Wright's column is entirely mistaken. According to Wright:

"A recent Time magazine cover story — “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” — explained why many Israelis just don’t think a peace deal is all that important: they’ve already got peace. Ever since Israel built its security wall, they’ve been safe from suicide bombers, and homemade rockets from Gaza can’t reach them. They’re prosperous to boot. What’s not to like?"

Unbeknownst to Wright, the Hamas arsenal in Gaza now also consists of Iranian missiles with a range of 60 kilometers (almost 40 miles), which were test fired by Hamas into the Mediterranean and which are capable of reaching Tel Aviv. In addition, Hezbollah in Lebanon has been given by Iran an arsenal of 50,000 rockets and missiles, many of which are capable of striking anywhere in Israel.

In short, Israel is again facing an existential threat, and Wright's claims of Israeli apathy to peace are entirely without basis.

It is also peculiar that Wright relies upon a Time magazine cover story, which has been roundly condemned as anti-Semitic (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-time-magazine-israel-cover-story-rehashes-anti-semitic-lies-1.313096) and which has prompted protests from readers and advertisers alike.

Notwithstanding the Time Magazine article, moderate Israelis have never given up their dream for peace, consisting of a two-state solution. Personally, like a majority of Israelis who backed the Barak and Olmert peace plans, I would be delighted to see an autonomous, prosperous, peaceful Palestinian state arise beside Israel. But like most Israelis, I am all too familiar with Palestinian suicide bombings directed against civilians. I am painfully cognizant of the Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis) and rejects any negotiated peace with Israel. And I am also aware that Israel is only 9 miles wide at its waist and that Ben Gurion Airport is only 5 miles away from the border with the Palestinian Authority, i.e. civilian aircraft will be well within range of shoulder held missiles. Yes, I favor a return to the 1967 borders with land swaps to make everyone whole, but there must also be ironclad guarantees of Israel's security from Abbas, who is still unwilling to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Let Abbas in a forthright manner acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and then let's see what compromises can be achieved in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

Meanwhile, Robert, the next time you need the facts on the ground before wedging your foot in your mouth, you are welcome to contact me.

Robert Wright's "The Meaning of the Koran": Words Speak Louder Than Actions

In commentary in today's New York Times entitled "The Meaning of the Koran" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/the-meaning-of-the-koran/?hp), Robert Wright sets up a straw man argument by claiming that those worried by radical Islam perceive the Koran as more violent than the New and Old Testaments, and to overcome this prejudice contends:

"A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening."

In fact, I think that Americans are not concerned by what is written in the Koran, but rather are troubled, for example by the savage murder of Daniel Pearl, the massacre in Mumbai, the hanging of homosexuals, "honor" killings against women throughout the Muslim Middle East, mutilation of female genitals, brutal persecution of minorities such as Iran's Baha'is, horrific intolerance against Muslim minorities such as the Ahmadis in Pakistan and Indonesia, refusal to grant independence to 35 million Kurds, threats to annihilate Israel, genocide against Sudan's Black animists in Darfur, persecution of Christian Copts in Egypt, the imprisonment and lashing of women who have been gang raped in Saudi Arabia, Qaddafi's threats to dominate Europe, and incessant wars among Muslim states which have killed an exponentially larger number of people than all of the combined Arab-Israeli wars.

Is politically correct Wright claiming that all of the above should not worry Americans? Is he saying that these examples are not in keeping with mainstream Islam? Should we content ourselves with knowing that the Old and New Testaments, like the Koran, are replete with stories of cruelty and savagery?

I am left to wonder whether Wright agrees with Feisal Abdul Rauf that "United States policies were an accessory to the crime [of 9/11]". But be that as it may, I would be delighted if Wright would care to bring me "into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening."

Let's start with a meeting with King Abdullah in Mecca and see if I literally come away with my skin.

Robert Wright's "Against 'Pro-Israel'"

See below my open letter to Robert Wright, whose online commentary entitled "Against 'Pro-Israel'" appears in the online edition of The New York Times today:

Dear Mr. Wright,

In your "Online Commentary" entitled "Against 'Pro-Israel'" in The New York Times, you write:

It has been reported that, notwithstanding accounts in Israel’s media, Biden did not, in fact, complain to Netanyahu in private about the threat of Israel’s policies to American troops. Perhaps predictably, the journalist who first reported this is the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who has been described by one New York Times columnist as Netanyahu’s “faithful stenographer.”

Without even opening your link, all know that the New York Times columnist to whom you refer is Roger Cohen.

I live in Israel, and I am intimately acquainted with the facts on the ground. I oppose expansion by Israel of the West Bank settlements, but do not oppose Israeli construction in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Your swipe at Jeffrey Goldberg, using Roger Cohen as a reference, is far worse than unfortunate:

- Roger Cohen spent months attempting to inculcate the view among Times readers that "Iran is not totalitarian".
- Roger Cohen wrote an op-ed ("What Iran's Jews Say") portraying the life of Iran's Jewish minority as happy and contented. Cohen failed to note at any time during the course of his Iran series that he does not speak Farsi and that his interviews were conducted via a government appointed translator. I complained to the Times and was promised an answer whether Cohen's op-ed violated New York Times journalistic standards, but ultimately never received an answer. See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-roger-cohens-what-irans-jews-say-in_17.html
- Roger Cohen in his extended and ongoing series of op-eds concerning Iran never met with Iran's Baha'is and wrote only one sentence in passing about their horrifying oppression and persecution. See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-obama-sacrificing-bahais-in-pursuit.html
- Roger Cohen ignored Iran's persecution of its Kurdish minority. See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Kurds
- Roger Cohen ignored how Iran stones to death alleged "adulterers" with their children watching.
- Roger Cohen ignored how Iran hangs homosexuals.
- Roger Cohen ignored Iran's support of genocide in Darfur.
- Roger Cohen ignored Iranian sponsored terrorist bombings against Jews as far away as Argentina.
- Roger Cohen ignored the torture and murder by Iran of "unfriendly" journalists.
- Roger Cohen ignored "honor killings" perpetrated against Iranian women.

If you are interested, I can continue this list.

In short, your reference to Roger Cohen, who over the course of many months bolstered the image of a monstrous totalitarian state, in an attempt to deprecate Jeffrey Goldberg is inappropriate to say the least.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[Robert Wright is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. It is worth noting that Flynt Leverett also works for the New America Foundation: Director, Iran Initiative, Senior Research Fellow, American Strategy Program and Director, Geopolitics of Energy Initiative. Re Leverett, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Leverett]