► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Elliott Abrams’

About that coup

by Mojambo ( 92 Comments › )
Filed under Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia (Islamic Law) at July 6th, 2013 - 12:50 pm
Obama just loves Muslim Brotherhood people. His  sucking up to Morsi was disgraceful and what was worse was those M1A1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighters that he bestowed on that Islamofascist dictator
by  Elliott Abrams

1. The removal of an elected president by the army is a coup, whether we like that president or not. There are cases where a president is removed by the military pursuant to legislative or judicial action, or due to brazen violations of legitimate judicial or legislative action, as happened in Honduras in 2009. The Obama administration wrongly called that a coup, but what happened in Egypt this week clearly was one.

2. It was not, however, something that came out of thin air. It was the product of misconduct on the part of President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. He and the MB knew full well that they had lost the support of most Egyptians and that Morsi had been elected in a 51–48 vote, not a landslide.  [……..] Egyptians had every reason to fear that the MB was seeking to make its hold on power irreversible, and to act to prevent this.

3. Even if this coup was inevitable due to MB conduct, it would have been better if it had been delayed by six or twelve months. More and more Egyptians would have concluded that the MB could not rule and sought not national progress but consolidation of their own power. Any eventual coup would have had wider support. Still, many opponents of the regime — including liberals, moderates, Copts, and democrats — believed that another year of MB rule would have done too much damage to Egypt.  […….]

4. Two good effects of this coup are that it may chasten other MB and Islamist groups, and lead to splits in the Egyptian MB. As to the first point, surely MB groups and affiliates in Jordan, Morocco, the Gulf, and elsewhere will feel that something went wrong beyond misjudging the Egyptian army. Egyptian MB leaders misjudged everything: their ability to govern, their ability to run the economy, the tolerance of the political system for their efforts to concentrate power, and the willingness of the army and police to give them slack, for example. So other MB groups must rethink, and must conclude that they will have to take more time and win more hearts and minds, not just try to win one election and then seize permanent power. As to the second point, splits within the MB, recall that initially the Egyptian MB wasn’t even going to run a candidate for president. And Turkish PM Erdogan, an Islamist, was said to have advised going slow against the army, noting that he had destroyed the independent power of the Turkish military — but over ten years, not one. Surely there will now be recriminations within the MB, “I told you so” complaints, personal grudges, principled arguments about who made the gross errors that cost them power — and the more, the better! We can hope that the Egyptian MB’s famous unity and central control will start to crack.

5. Another good effect is to chasten the Qataris, one of whose efforts to claim greater influence in the region came through backing the Egyptian MB with billions of dollars in aid while their Gulf partners (especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE) thought the Egyptian MB was dangerous and held back. All that Qatari money is now a lost investment. Meanwhile Qatar has a new government — a new emir, new prime minister, and new foreign minister. Emir Hamad and Qatar’s foreign-affairs maestro, Hamad bin Jassem, are both gone. One may hope that the Egyptian case will help persuade the new Emir Tamim and his new government to review Qatar’s support for radical groups like the MB.

6. The Obama administration has mishandled Egypt from the day it took office. First it embraced Mubarak, whom Hillary Clinton called a “family friend,” and took no stand against his human-rights violations and increasingly unpopular effort to insert his son Gamal as his successor. When Mubarak fell, the White House was off balance but decided to embrace Morsi with equal enthusiasm. Again, human-rights violations were ignored; Morsi’s prosecutions of journalists and activists for “insulting the president” — more numerous in his one year than Mubarak had racked up in 30 — were not protested. Even the prosecution and conviction of American NGO workers, essentially for the crime of promoting democracy, did not seem to turn the Obamians against Morsi. So today Egyptians believe we were pro-Morsi and wanted him both to stay in office and to accrue more personal power.  [……..]Secretary Kerry seems to ignore Syria and Egypt and to have an obsession with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The post of assistant secretary of state for Egypt has now been vacant for an entire year, and no one has even been nominated to fill it. The current ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, is rumored to be the likely nominee, but Egyptians who oppose the MB view her as having failed them and failed human rights in Egypt.  [……..]Has Obama learned anything from this policy debacle?

7. U.S. law now requires that we suspend all aid to Egypt. We should not try to escape that law; coups are a bad thing and in principle we should oppose them. But most of our aid to Egypt is already obligated, so the real damage to the Egyptian economy and to military ties should be slight — if the army really does move forward to new elections. This we should urge it to do, not only out of principle but because the army will ruin itself and its popularity if it tries again to rule directly. Generals are not economists and should wish to escape responsibility (read “blame”) for the increasingly dire condition of Egypt’s economy. [………]

8. The failure of the MB in Egypt is a very good thing. It is true that a “stab in the back” legend will now develop in which they were doing just fine, or about to do just fine, until unfairly removed from power. But no Egyptian outside the MB will believe this, and the group that surrounded General Sisi when he announced that Morsi was out is proof of this: democrats, liberals, religious leaders, politicians, all backing the army in its removal of the MB from power.

9. This is an important stage in the “Arab Spring” and probably hails years of instability in Egypt as Islamists fight back. The Egyptian MB was once a terrorist group and elements of it may return to violence, as may other Egyptian Islamists. For the United States, one lesson is that when Islamist groups are elected we should hold them to strict human-rights and civil-liberties standards and to democratic procedures, rather than giving them a pass — as Obama did. Another lesson is that we should always remember who our friends are and should support them: those who truly believe in liberty as we conceive it, minorities such as the Copts who are truly threatened and who look to us, allies such as the Israelis who are with us through thick and thin. […….] A policy based on the simple principle of supporting our friends and opposing our enemies will do far more to advance the principles and interests of the United States.

Read the rest – Reacting to that coup in Egypt

Fast times at Lenin High

by Mojambo ( 66 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Cold War, Liberal Fascism at April 3rd, 2013 - 2:00 pm

Full disclosure – I sub taught at the Elisabeth Irwin School aka The Little Red School House in the early 1990’s and I was struck after looking at the pamphlets on the bulletin boards how apt the name “Little Red School House ” was.

by Ronald Radosh

In 1945, the senior class of Elisabeth Irwin High School voted to have the school teach Soviet history instead of American history.

The Little Red School House touts itself as a bastion of “progressive education.” Even today the website of the private pre-K-12 school in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village neighborhood advertises its commitment to “social justice.” But back when I attended—I graduated in 1955 from the high school, which is officially named for its founder, the activist and social worker Elisabeth Irwin—”progressive education” simply meant an indoctrination in leftist ideology. In 1945, the senior class voted to have the school teach recent Soviet history instead of American history, since, as the school’s 75th anniversary commemorative book explains, the members of the class “thought Russia was great and Communism a noble experiment.”That commemorative book was coedited by Dina Hampton, a journalist and alumna of the school (class of 1977). Now in “Little Red: Three Passionate Lives Through the Sixties and Beyond,” Ms. Hampton profiles three prominent graduates of Elisabeth Irwin: the Communist academic and Black Panther activist Angela Davis; the filmmaker and Students for a Democratic Society member Tom Hurwitz; and Elliott Abrams, an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and special adviser to President George W. Bush. All three graduated from the school in the early 1960s,  […….].

Judging by her book, it appears that Ms. Hampton still possesses the political outlook we were marinated in at Elisabeth Irwin—a holier-than-thou leftism that our teachers assumed brought both political clarity and moral superiority. Thus the book’s heroine is Ms. Davis, a devout believer in the “science of Marxism-Leninism,” as she referred to in the summer of 1972, when speaking to a crowd at Moscow’s airport. Mr. Hurwitz, too, is depicted here as a true man of the left and hence a moral exemplar.

Mr. Abrams is simply the evil counterpart, a man who betrayed his school and who, even while still a student at Little Red, dared to ask its librarian why the school had subscriptions only to the Nation and I.F. Stone’s Weekly. “Could the school not achieve some balance in the publications it displayed,” the young man wondered, by stocking “a magazine like the National Review?” “The culture is dominated by right-wing politics,” was the response. “We don’t need to get more of it in the school.”

When Ms. Hampton isn’t celebrating the school’s wacky politics, she tries to soften them. The school’s teachers “encouraged its charges to scrutinize, question and resist the inequities of American society,” she writes, and students were “imbued from their earliest years with the belief that they could change the world.” But as I recall, its teachers believed that the only way to better the lot of mankind was through leftist activism and Marxist revolution. And as Ms. Hampton herself reports, it was the school’s longtime history teacher Harold Kirshner, for instance, who “effected a life-altering transformation in Davis,” by assigning her to read Marx and Engels.

Ms. Davis is treated here as a virtual saint. From her activities in the Black Panther Party to her membership in the American Communist Party, her every political choice is heralded. [……]

Readers are barely told about the thuggish behavior of the Panthers. Ms. Hampton, for example, omits the fact that, in 1969, the Panthers tortured and murdered a member suspected of being an informant. As for Ms. Davis’s commitment to freedom, there isn’t a word about her full-throated support of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor about the open letter to her by Czech dissident Jeri Pelikan, written in 1972, which chastised her for refusing to defend political prisoners in his country who opposed the invasion of a sovereign nation by the U.S.S.R. […….]. Ms. Davis, a firm defender of Stalinism, didn’t respond but had a Communist friend tell the press that Ms. Davis believed the critics of the Czech regime were undermining socialism and undeserving of support.

By contrast, when Ms. Hampton discusses Mr. Abrams, she carefully draws out every attack made on him during the Reagan years. He is castigated for Iran-Contra, for supporting aid to the moderate Duarte government in El Salvador in the early 1980s, for opposing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and on and on. Mr. Abrams got away with these sins against the international left, Ms. Hampton says, because of his “charm.” She can’t understand how the Council on Foreign Relations—an organization “whose members include news anchor Brian Williams, contributing editor for Time magazine Fareed Zakaria and actress and activist Angelina Jolie”—can have him as a fellow. She approvingly quotes Little Red classmates furious that one of the school’s commemorative publications included an appraisal by Mr. Abrams of his years there.

The days are long gone when leftist educators and activists would create their own schools to propagate Communist ideology in places like Greenwich Village. But as Dina Hampton’s book demonstrates, the old dogmatism and uncharitable spirit of those agitators lives on.

Read the rest – Fast times at Lenin High

 

Bill Clinton besides throwing Israel under the bus, engages in some crude ethnic stereotyping of Israeli Jews

by Mojambo ( 118 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Palestinians at September 23rd, 2011 - 5:00 pm

So much for Bill Clinton’s reputation as being pro Israel. It seems he is pro Israel as long as he has lap dogs like Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert doing his bidding. To blame Netanyahu for the lack of peace progress is similar to Pat Buchanan’s blaming Winston Churchill (in his execrable book written a few years ago)  for both World Wars.  How stupid and arrogant is it for Clinton to trash Netanyahu (a man he worked to defeat in 1999) while his wife has to at least on the surface collaborate  with him in negotiations? Not content to show his true colors, Clinton divides Israelis into different ethnic classes such as Arabs, Sabras, Ashkenazis, Sephardim, Orthodox, and Russians (the last two being villains) – as if some are more tolerant of Palestinian intransigence and terror then others. He has forgotten that it was Likud who signed Camp David n 1979 (that seems to be unraveling) and Sharon who got out of Gaza. Why should Israel offer the Palestinians the same deal that they rejected in 2000 and which has cost so many Jewish lives?

by Elliot Abrams

Bill Clinton today blasted Benjamin Netanyahu, blaming the Israeli prime minister for the lack of progress toward peace with the Palestinians.

The errors and misstatements in Clinton’s interview with bloggers are sufficient to change his reputation from that of a firm supporter of Israel into that of a firm supporter of Israelis who agree with his twisted version of the facts. Clinton simply blames the Israeli right for killing peace efforts. He appears entirely—in fact, embarrassingly— unaware of what has actually happened to the Israeli right over the last ten years, where the change has been extraordinary.

First, Ariel Sharon embraced Palestinian statehood in 2003, at the Aqaba Summit, and then took all Israeli settlements and bases out of Gaza in 2005. Sharon broke up his Likud Party over this, forming Kadima to back his policies. Likud fought those new Sharon policies for years, but Netanyahu is now bringing Likud, or most of it, around to supporting the basic Sharon view—that there should indeed be a Palestinian state. In his speech to the Knesset on Israeli independence day this year (May 16), ignored by Clinton (as it was by the Obama administration), Netanyahu agreed again to Palestinian statehood and the compromises it entails: “These compromises, by the way, will be hard to make because, no matter what, they involve parts of our homeland. It is not a strange land, it is the land of our forefathers, to which we have historic rights as well as security interests.” In his speech, Netanyahu also said Israel “must maintain the settlement blocs,” thereby tacitly acknowledging that every other settlement outside those few blocs may have to be given up.

[…..]

As he did last year, Clinton once again offered his vulgar, pop sociology explanation of Israel: “you’ve had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them. The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding. The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

Natan Sharansky, one of those Soviet immigrants “who just showed up lately” and who Clinton presumably thinks does not want peace, said in response: “I am particularly disappointed by the president’s casual use of inappropriate stereotypes about Israelis, dividing their views on peace based on ethnic origins.” Presumably, if you disagree with Clinton over the necessary preconditions for peace, you are against peace entirely—and you need to be denounced. The implication that someone like Sharansky, because he is an immigrant from the USSR, is “not encumbered by the historical record” and is indifferent to Palestinian claims requires no refutation; Clinton should be ashamed of himself. Unlike Clinton, whose most frequent foreign visitor to the White House (13 times!) was Yasser Arafat, Sharansky has stressed the importance of human rights and democracy as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Clinton was apparently quite ready to allow Arafat to create a terrorist satrapy.

[……]

That “deal” was adopted at an Arab League summit attended by only 10 of the 22 Arab leaders of the day, and among those not in attendance were the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt, and Yasser Arafat—suggesting that support for this proposal may have been quite limited. Moreover, it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, never proffered as a basis for negotiation. This “heck of a deal” required “Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.” In other words, go back to the indefensible 1967 borders, give up every settlement bloc, and give up every square foot of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. Not quite as “huge” an offer as President Clinton recalls.

“The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were Rabin’s assassination and Sharon’s stroke,” Clinton said. I can think of some others: The fact that a terrorist and thief, Yasser Arafat, led the Palestinian people for decades; the fact that he turned down Israeli peace offers at Camp David; the fact that the Palestinians turned down Ehud Olmert’s even more generous peace offers in 2008; the fact that thousands of Israelis were wounded or killed in the first and second intifadas; the fact that no Palestinian leader has ever spoken with candor to the Palestinian people about the compromises they will need to make in any peace agreement; the fact that for the last two and half years the Palestinian leadership has adamantly refused to come to the negotiating table.

In his Knesset speech, Netanyahu had a far clearer view than Clinton of the real tragedy: “The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the state of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.”  It is sad that President Clinton cannot seem to grasp this elementary fact.

Read the rest –  Bill Clinton reinvents Israel