Thomas Friedman's "When Friends Fall Out": And What About the Kurds?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "When Friends Fall Out" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman observes that he has a "soft spot for Turkey" and writes, "it has been painful to hear . . . Prime Minister Erdogan in recent years publicly lash out with ever-greater vehemence at Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza."

Friedman not even once mentions that some 20% of Turkey's population - 15 million people - consists of Kurds, who for decades have been abused in the most violent, ugly and shocking manner by Turkey. The Kurds, who have long sought their independence from Turkey, have been tortured and murdered, have suffered ongoing economic and educational discrimination, and have even been prevented by Turkey from using their own language.

Before Turkey seeks to come to the aid of Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and which rejects a nonviolent solution with Israel, Turkey should first redress the horrific wrongs which its Kurdish minority has suffered by granting them independence.

It need be observed that the Kurds are also the object of abuse and discrimination in Syria and Iran. On May 9, five Kurds convicted of "Moharebeh" (i.e. waging war against God) were executed in Tehran's Evin Prison.

Turkey's warming relationship with Iran is no accident, given their common war against their Kurdish minorities and Turkey's growing religious militance. Turkey's patronization of the Gaza flotilla, primarily aimed at freeing Iran's proxy, Hamas, from the Israeli blockade, as well as Turkey's recent efforts to facilitate Iran's pursuit of its nuclear weapons program are part and parcel of this budding alliance.

The Gaza Flotilla: Obama Wants the Facts

Following the struggle on the Turkish passenger ship Mavi Marmara, Obama spoke over the phone with Netanyahu, and according to a statement issued by the White House, “The president . . . expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible.” Actually, I think matters are fairly clear:

The Gaza flotilla, consisting of six ships and an alliance of some 700 Leftist and Islamic "peace activists", sought to break Israel's sea blockade of Gaza in order to allow the free transportation of persons and material to Hamas, an organization whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and rejects negotiations of any kind with Israel.

The organizers of the flotilla were requested to convey a letter to Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped into Gaza, who is being held, against international law, without access to Red Cross or any other visits. These "peace activists" refused this request.

Before embarking, these "peace activists" were heard singing songs glorifying the murder of Jews.

The "peace activists" were told they could unload the goods they wished to donate to Gaza at Ashdod and could oversee the transport of the said goods, after inspection for contraband, into Gaza. The "peace activists" refused the offer.

The Gaza flotilla was boarded by Israeli soldiers armed with paint ball rifles and pistols. The "peace activists" attempted to strip the soldiers of their weapons and kill them.

Is the loss of lives tragic? Always. But these are not "peace activists". This is a miscreant collection of Jew-haters, who couldn't give a damn if 5 million people die in the Congo, and who would have us believe that Gazans are "starving", notwithstanding the fact that Gaza markets are swollen with consumer goods and that there is no hunger in the Gaza Strip. These are persons whose hatred of Jews allows them to ignore "honor killings" in Gaza, the execution of prisoners by Hamas without due process, the murder of political dissidents by Hamas, and rampant discrimination against women, homosexuals and Christians.

These "peace activists" sought a violent confrontation, and they got what they wanted.

Turkey wants a UN Security Council investigation of the incident? By all means. And I would also suggest that the UN concurrently investigate the rabid oppression of Turkey's significant Kurdish minority, which has long been deprived of their rights and which should immediately be granted independence.

"We Are Willing to Die for Our Country, Not for a Gas Well"

While walking with the dog late last night along the main thoroughfare of my community, I came upon the following banner, stretched between two palm trees, reading:

"We are willing to die for our country, not for a gas well".

The banner had not been there the previous night and provided much to consider concerning changing values and political awareness, as Pancake and I continued our midnight stroll.

No, as all who regularly read this blog know, I do not live in Louisiana. Rather, I live in a small Israeli coastal community about an hour's drive north of Tel Aviv. And yes, Israel has remarkably hit upon relatively (by Israeli standards) large deposits of natural gas off its Mediterranean coast, one mile under the sea, which could supply Israel's energy needs for many decades to come and eliminate the need for imported coal.

Ten years ago, any such energy discovery would have been caused wild Tel Aviv Stock Exchange gyrations, but would also have been ultimately discounted when it was realized that yields would not cover extraction costs. Not this time. It's the real thing, yet in late-May 2010 no one is dancing in the street.

Is the lack of joy the direct result of the BP spill off Louisiana? Quite possibly. Like others in my town, I do not want to see the Caesarea beach, the site of ancient Roman aqueducts, awash in pollutants, with giant sea turtles flipped over on their backs and kingfishers gone from the skies. Can the government act responsibly, learn from the Louisiana spill, and ensure the safety of our environment?

But whereas I can easily imagine today a multitude of banners in Louisiana protesting offshore drilling, somehow I can't conceive of any of these banners linking offshore drilling with a willingness to die for your country. What's cooking in Israel? Obviously, my Caesarea neighbors are more astute and attuned to reality than I thought.

The situation in Israel's north grows grimmer by the day:

Netanyahu on Saturday acknowledged to Italy's Berlusconi that Hezbollah is operating Scud missile systems on a Syrian military base near the town of Adra, northeast of Damascus.

Hezbollah's Nasrallah said last Tuesday that Hezbollah can now inflict the same measure of harm that Israel caused Lebanon during the 2006 war and threatened to sink any shipping approaching Israel's shoreline in the event of renewed fighting. Earlier this year, he threatened to attack Ben-Gurion Airport. Lest we forget, Nasrallah will long be remembered for his declaration, "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

In an interview with Haaretz, Brig. Gen. Uzi Moskovitch believes a confrontation with Hezbollah will occur in the coming years and acknowledges that there will be long-range rocket fire on Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/mess-report/and-how-is-the-army-doing-1.292613).

The imperfect storm is brewing. Yet my neighbors in tiny Caesarea, whose children have died in past wars and will lay down their lives in future wars, retain their optimism and demand that the integrity of their coastline be preserved.

Impressive.

"Hell in the Islamic Republic": Roger Cohen Outsmarts Himself

In his latest affront to logic and reason, Roger Cohen creates two categories of straw men in "Hell in the Islamic Republic" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html), "realists", who would "toss aside human rights concerns and repair relations with Tehran," and "idealists", who "have rained renewed fury on Ahmadinejad, called for his overthrow and urged Obama to bury outreach and back Moussavi." Needless to say, Cohen is wiser than both of his Frankensteins:

"If you believe that Iran is not eternally condemned to veer from a monarch’s to a theocrat’s repression, and that its centennial quest for pluralism is unquenchable, speak out about abuse but pursue engagement because isolation only serves the horror merchants. Shun the realist and idealist bravura for the gray area where things get done."

Yeah, I'm sure this tactic would have worked equally well some 70 years ago with Hitler.

Absent from Cohen's epistle is any acknowledgement that he is again contradicting himself, this time within the space of a week.

In his May 20, 2010 op-ed, "America Moves the Goalposts", Cohen claimed that "Iran and the United States are unnatural enemies with plenty they might agree on if they ever broke the ice" and that the Brazilian-Turkish Iran deal is worth pursuing. (Re censorship of my response to this op-ed by the Times, see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-york-times-censors-bill-of-rights.html.)

In today's op-ed, Cohen suddenly realizes that Iran is selectively torturing, raping and murdering hundreds of political prisoners and now tells us that the Brazilian-Turkish Iran deal is only worthy of "skeptical consideration."

Is it not Cohen who is mercurially "moving the goalposts"? What happened to last week's declaration of American-Iranian commonality and concordance?

Michael Rubin labeled Cohen a "useful idiot" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjg3ZTQxOWY0N2U0MWI1MTZjNTZiZTUyZTJlMzU4ODE=). Today's op-ed leaves me in doubt concerning Cohen's utility.

[I recommend, if you have the time and patience, to read several of the online comments posted in response to Cohen's latest op-ed.

It never ceases to amaze me how persons can say "my country is no better" and "we mustn't point fingers," yet are able to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that they are not going to be dragged off in the middle of the night to the equivalent of an Evin prison.

At issue here is whether a country capable of systematically torturing political dissidents, murdering homosexuals, oppressing religious minorities such as the Baha'is in the most horrific fashion, and threatening its neighbors with extermination (how many people are even aware of the proxy war currently being waged between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen or Iranian claims on Bahrain), should be given a nuclear weapons capability.]

Thomas Friedman's "As Ugly as It Gets": It's Actually Much Uglier

Dear Tom,

We met in Lebanon almost 30 years ago.

I am deeply appreciative of your most recent Times op-ed, "As Ugly as It Gets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/opinion/26friedman.html), which decries the shameful embrace of Iran's Ahmadinejad by Brazil's Lula and Turkey's Erdogan. By gleefully endorsing the obscene conduct of Ahmadinejad, Lula and Erdogan have become accessories to the ongoing oppression and murder of Iran's Baha'is, homosexuals, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, women and political dissidents. However, Brazil and Turkey are not the only parties at fault.

The watered-down sanctions package against Iran currently being sought by the U.S. could only be arranged after the U.S. lifted sanctions against three Russian entities accused of assisting Iran develop nuclear and missile technology, and a fourth Russian organization which has been selling anti-tank guided missiles to Syria. The door is also now open for Russia to proceed with its sales of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.

Concerning China, we still don't know which concessions were made by the U.S. in order to allow them also to support, temporarily, the proposed sanctions package against Iran. We do know that Obama does not dare breathe the words "human rights" to the leadership of this country, which holds much of America's debt and is keen on milking Iranian oil.

What about America's European allies, which refuse to terminate their lucrative trade and banking relationships with Iran?

And what about your fellow Times columnist, Roger Cohen, who recently wrote an op-ed, "America Moves the Goalposts", claiming that the Brazilian-Turkish Iran deal is worth pursuing? According to Cohen, "Iran and the United States are unnatural enemies with plenty they might agree on if they ever broke the ice."

Needless to say, in alleging broad American/Iranian concurrence, Cohen ignored such fundamental U.S. values as freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, the right to petition government for a redress of grievances, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process, trial by jury, the right to counsel, and prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

In short, Cohen managed to ignore all that is held dear by the U.S. Bill of Rights and which allows each of us to post comments to New York Times op-eds without fear of being hauled off in the middle of the night to the equivalent of Tehran's infamous Evin Prison.

A pity that Cohen over the past year and a half has never taken the time to examine the desperate plight of Iran's Baha'is, the hanging of Iranian homosexuals, or the stoning to death of Iranian women accused of adultery, before pronouncing judgment concerning values held in common by the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Tom, maybe you would be willing to undo this wrong and begin by providing us with a column concerning Iran's Baha'is, whose agonizing persecution goes ignored by an indifferent, self-serving world.

Thank you.

Jeffrey

Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of Days?

The Middle East is fast coming to a boil, and meanwhile the Obama administration is doing what it does best: nothing. Prior to yesterday's meeting between Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri and President Obama in Washington, we were informed by the White House:

"'We obviously have grave concerns about the transfer of any missile capability to Hezbollah through Lebanon from Syria,' a senior Obama administration official told Reuters, saying the issue would likely be raised in Monday's talks."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64K6FE20100521

"Grave concerns" about the transfer of Scuds and M600's to Hezbollah? Examine the AP photo of Obama's meeting with Hariri and determine for yourself whether there is any "gravity" evident in either of these leaders' expressions (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-warns-hariri-of-growing-hezbollah-weapons-threat-1.292036). It should be observed that Hariri recently went on record as denying any missile transfer whatsoever from Syria to Hezbollah:

"'Where is the proof that Hezbollah has these missiles,' Hariri asked, adding that 'Israel possesses nuclear weapons.'

He also refused 'to ask Hezbollah to deny the possession of such weapons,' saying, 'Why put ourselves in the position of being accused, and why give Israel the right to make such accusations?'"

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/04/27/107036.html

There should have been nothing jovial in this meeting between Obama and Hariri. Notwithstanding his father's murder by Syria's President Assad, Hariri has again reduced Lebanon to the status of a vassal state subservient to Damascus, owing to the decline of U.S. prestige throughout the Middle East. As observed by Syria's Assad in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica also on Monday, the United States has lost its influence in the Middle East, and Assad continues to scorn Obama's offer to reinstate an American ambassador to Damascus.

Further evidence of America's loss of credibility and deterrent capacity in the Middle East can be found in Turkey's willingness to facilitate the proposed nuclear fuel swap deal for half of Iran's nuclear stockpile, which is intended to derail the sanctions package sought by the U.S. The sanctions package itself could only be arranged after the U.S. lifted sanctions against three Russian entities accused of assisting Iran develop nuclear and missile technology, and a fourth Russian organization which has been selling anti-tank guided missiles to Syria. The door is also now open for Russia to proceed with its sales of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.

End of days? No, I'm not a devotee of eschatology, but without U.S. willingness to get tough with nations other than Israel, Middle East tension will reach explosive levels this summer, and Israel is facing an existential threat no less daunting than that which it faced in 1967 and 1973.

Paul Krugman's "The Old Enemies": No Mention of Those 65 and Older

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Old Enemies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html?hp), Paul Krugman informs us that the Obama administration is facing anger being exploited by corporate interests. According to Krugman:

"Roosevelt turned corporate opposition into a badge of honor: 'I welcome their hatred,' he declared. It’s time for President Obama to find his inner F.D.R., and do the same."

The problem with this analogy is that despair with the Obama presidency is not limited to corporations. As recently observed by Gallup, Obama's approval in the fifth quarter of his presidency ranked among the lowest fifth-quarter averages for elected presidents.

As further recently observed by Gallup, Obama's job approval rating among those who are 65 years and older is only 43%. Do these Americans indeed qualify as "The Old Enemies"? Should Obama also welcome their acute dissatisfaction?

Sorry, Paul, but Obama is no Roosevelt, and I don't foresee any "fireside chats" from Obama, who has lost his rapport with a majority of Americans.

While smearing corporate America in broad-brush fashion, Krugman conveniently ignores the inordinate donations of Goldman Sachs to none other than Obama.

Corporate cultures vary widely, and there is no justification to villify all of corporate America in this manner. Would Krugman really seek to dismantle the likes of Intel, Microsoft, Motorola, General Electric, IBM and Apple and turn them, and the rest of corporate America, into cottage industry? One can only wonder about the effect on unemployment, technological progress and U.S. economic leadership.