When the best hasbara is no hasbara

Has anyone who ever suffered loss appreciated a condolence message that opens, "I'm so sorry for your loss, but…" Most of us would consider such words to be off-message or insincere at best, vindictive and insensitive at worst.

I suppose what amazes me most about the numerous opportunistic Facebook posts following the Paris attacks is the total lack of shame or pretense. Between cartoons, unsourced videos and personal manifestos, the message ranges from shcandenfreude to resentment, from incitement to satisfaction. They nearly outnumber the messages of support.

The worst of the worst are those who either fool themselves or perhaps are trying to fool the rest of us: "My heart aches for the people of Paris, BUT…" The trend is so prevalent, particularly among my fellow Israel-supporters, that I've clicked "hide" instead of un-friending the dozen or more offenders, after I post my own criticism. 

Honestly, it's hard to rank the levels of perversity, because so many Facebook friends didn't even register a condolence followed by "but" -- they just launched right into a series of posts playing up their own sense of righteousness, superiority, and self-satisfaction.

Thanks for your sympathy?

One message I keep seeing, is that the French are too focused on boycotting Israeli products (presumably because the European Union just voted to label -- but NOT boycott -- products from the West Bank), and not enough on keeping out terrorists. The moral of this meme is that the French have it coming. (Of course, even if they were, they wouldn't have it coming.)

Another message complains that Facebook and the world make such a big deal when 129 (now 132) people are killed in France, while ignoring or excusing smaller attacks on Israelis. Anyone with two or more kids will recognize this sort of jealousy as perfectly natural and understandable…for a six-year-old. 

The fact is, European leaders like French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls have stood at Israel's side in its fight against terrorism and other threats, and defended the rights of French Jews -- pretending that they haven't should elicit derision, not applause and "like" clicks. 

The real meaning of Sarkozy-Obama chat

Many people still seem curious or worried about what the recently overheard exchange between President Obama and French President Sarkozy reveals about their bias against Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. There is reason to worried and buoyed, but not in the way most observers -- whether left-wing or right-wing -- might think.

The first lesson is not that Sarkozy's statement -- that Netanyahu is a "liar" -- reflects the innate anti-Semitism of European leaders. (Obama commiserated, noting that he has to deal with Netanyahu "every day".) It's that Netanyahu has managed to forfeit the trust of one of Israel's most ardent champions on the Continent. The French invented modern diplomacy, so they are used to bearing the endemic deceit and betrayal of international wheeling and dealing.

(It would be ironic if the publication of memoirs by the son of Israel's former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was the impetus for Sarkozy's claim, since Sharon famously uttered the same charge to Netanyahu in person.)

Sarkozy has been committed to assuring Israel's security and to tolerating Israeli actions that most of his colleagues roundly condemn. He has long contended -- at least in off-the-record meetings -- that if the West does not stop Iran's nuclear program, then Israel will do so on its own. So, if Netanyahu has managed to alienate Sarkozy, one of Europe's most powerful politicians, that speak more to Netanyahu and Israel's own course than to anything else.

Israel may finally lose the EU on Palestinian statehood

The Foreign Ministers of the European Union are meeting one more time to try and reach consensus on the Palestinian bid for United Nations recognition as an independent, sovereign state. This gives President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu one last chance to try working together before the United States is forced to cast its veto in the UN Security Council, probably in early October. 

If the UN General Assembly recognizes a sovereign state, that's at once a major breakthrough and headache for the Palestinians and certainly no picnic for the Israelis. It will effectively accord the Palestinians the same sovereign status as the State of Israel. Membership in the UN depends on a vote in the Security Council, however, where the United States is one of five permanent members (P-5) entitled to veto the whole exercise. But the GA resolution will carry massive moral power, open the floodgates for all sorts of substantive and symbolic advantages. The U.S. veto would withhold the ultimate prize, and for that Washington will be scorned. 

The biggest door the Palestinians hope to open with the "UDI" (unilateral declaration of independence) is Europe. Although sympathy for the Palestinians runs high in Europe, there are limitations: No formal Palestinian embassies, no major trade agreements, many of the business and development initiatives are subject to EU consensus and the Mideast Quartet comprised of the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia. If the Europeans register an exception by either not voting or voting against the anticipated UN resolution on Palestine, they won't be as free afterward to accept all the consequences of that statehood. 

Democracy by any other name

A senior colleague once visited a group of Soviet Jewish trans-migrants in Italy, in the final months of the Soviet Union. They had many complaints, but they all started shouting, "We want democracy!" So he asked them, what did they think democracy means? "It means we can do whatever we want!" was their response. It's all a matter of perspective...

As Central and Eastern European countries continue their post-Cold War democratic evolution, and African, Asian and Arab countries begin their own paths, it's worth noting that "democracy" and "representation" can mean very different things in different societies. This does not have to mean that certain countries are not ready for independence or popular rule. It should mean that different cultures may dictate different forms of government, and in ways that affect the discourse -- what people are thinking when they say and hear different terms.

What's a Great Power to do?? (see under: Syria)

What's a Great Power to do?

Syrian mobs loyal to President Bashar Assad attacked the U.S. and French embassies earlier today in Damascus, at the urging of pro-regime radio, with the evident collusion of Syrian police, and by the calculated strategy of Assad himself. This same tool was used by his father, the late President Hafez Assad.

The casus belli was the recent, principled visit by both ambassadors to Hama, amid a brutal crackdown against brave democracy demonstrators, nearly 30 years after Assad Senior slaughtered upwards of 10,000 civilians in the same city.

Assad takes advantage of the fact that the West has few remaining sticks left against him, short of a costly and complicated invasion scenario. We also have an abiding self-interest in the continuation of his late father's despotic dynasty or at least in an orderly and legitimate transition toward democracy - as do the Israelis. To some extent, Assad has called the West's bluff. With all the emphasis on democratic change around the Middle East and Africa these days, the United States has no option but to at least talk the talk. But when it comes to Syria, U.S. policymakers are loath to do much more than protest and punish -- regime change, especially with Iran covering the exits on both sides, is not something we're willing to contemplate.

The strike on the French Embassy also serves as a reminder to all, within Syria and across Europe and the Atlantic, that Syrian grievances extend beyond the perceived sins of America, and that Assad's best claim to power is the self-fulfilling and contradictory ethos of Syrian exceptionalism, regional domination, and international isolation. But, as they like to say in Washington, "make no mistake"-- the Assads have always been ruthless, and the West has always tried to look the other way. The non-lethal attacks on embassies are neither the first nor the last straw. But a fellow can still wish, can't he?

Why the Syrians are on their own

I was asked why the world is not taking more action in support of the popular uprising and basic human rights being threatened in Syria. By rights, the major powers should have stepped in the way they did in Libya, or at least call on Bashar Assad to step down (or at least revoke his medical license for systematically savaging a poor 13-year-old boy).

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Why now? Just because of what's been going on elsewhere in the region? The Assad family has put down localized uprisings before. Most Syrians may either hate the Assad regime or simply want democracy (or something else), but most people don't seem to be taking to the streets. Syria has been a brutal place for decades.

2. Everyone but the brave protesters seems to prefer Syria as it is. Even though Egypt is strategically vital, its territorial integrity was never up for grabs, while Syria -- a bit like Iraq -- has remained a precarious venture. Syria could disintegrate, in which case the region might plunge into violent anarchy.

3. So many powers are invested in Syria's status quo, moreso perhaps than with Egypt. Russia and France still retain old colonial designs on Lebanon and Syria's national life. The United States, obviously, has interests relating to Lebanon, Israel, and Iran. Though they be allies on generally good terms, Iran might use Assad's downfall to expand its role in shaping Syrian politics even more than in Lebanon, and to further streamline its pipeline of terrorists and weapons into Lebanon. Turkey fancies itself as the bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and it shares Kurd-a-phobia with Assad. 

4. Israel, of course, has relied upon its contentious yet predictable border, including Lebanon. It already lost one longtime neighbor in Hosni Mubarak, but at least there's a peace treaty locked in with U.S. financial and strategic support. Syria has no emergency brake. And if Israel ever did cut a deal with Syria, it could be a relatively straight -- if painful -- swap of Golan Heights for peace; but not if Iran steps in first.

The Syrian people have long deserved better than Bashar Assad, but they also know their predicament. Their resilience is impressive, and we can hope they succeed and that their rich intellectual and cultural heritage carries them through toward a more democratic future. But the vested interests will be vested, at least for now.

Good 'ol boys at the top

The latest news about Dominique Strauss-Kahn's alleged sexual assault of a New York hotel maid is typically shocking, and typically it will go down as another isolated incident. There will be no connection between what has now become a criminal matter and what goes on in capitals and international centers every single day. Strauss-Kahn, as it happens, is head of the International Monetary Fund and WAS the leading prospect to challenge French President Nicolas Sarkozy in next year's election. (He might still have a future in Italian politics...)

Strauss-Kahn's previous affair with a subordinate did not cost him either job, though Paul Wolfowitz had a similar complication that did force him to leave as head of the World Bank (especially when he awkwardly pulled strings on her behalf). Israel's former President Moshe Katsav is currently awaiting his appeal, having been convicted of raping and assaulting women right in his office. NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are also susceptible to this institutional culture.

When the men at the top have no sense of propriety, and their behavior goes unreported (as it so often does), public campaigns against sexual harassment and even sex trafficking ring hollow. What impact can they possibly have, and what hope does a female lawyer or economist have of getting the same consideration as her male colleagues?

French democracy - for export only?

DEMOCRACY ABROAD


Let there be no doubt, democracy was advanced yesterday in Africa. And payback is aways nice, too.

The French just apprehended Laurent Gbagbo after weeks of brutal fighting and negotiations. Gbagbo was the President of Côte d'Ivoire who consolidated the country and led it out of a deadlocked and deadly civil war, only to lose the first free election since... But more importantly, the French had to enjoy the moment, since they have long backed the other side, in this case the side whose candidate won last November's vote. My question is, whether the same tanks that knocked through Gbagbo's palace in the name of democracy were the same ones France was using just a few years ago to try to get their rebel allies into power by sheer force. 

Somehow Gbagbo managed to head off France's interference long enough to get his country back on track, only he forgot that too much of a good thing, c'est trop. Instead of taking the villa in exile with trust fund, he'll now get a condo with bars.

XENOPHOBIA AT HOME

Meanwhile, back in the birthplace of Liberté, Égalité & Fraternité (i.e., Ile de France), the popular national ban on public display of full veils went into effect. Some months ago, an online video ridiculing this initiative went viral [warning: contains dangerous post-modern dichotomies and moral complexity]. French tolerance has gone from ridiculous to medieval, in under one year.

Egypt, Tunisia, and shifting options for Israel

Unlike Iran, Egypt's revolution is not primarily a revolt against foreign domination. The next Egyptian government will have no reason to pick a real fight with Israel. The United States will not cut off vital cash assistance to Egypt, since most of the funds constitute a perpetual offset for Egypt sticking its neck out in the Arab world to make peace with Israel. Israel will not violate the terms of the peace treaty.

One lasting lesson of Camp David may be that Israelis could never get such an agreement with whatever government replaces Mubarak, but the treaty they have will be honored by Egypt and guaranteed by outside powers -- so lock in your terms now, while you still can.

Whether from a sense of necessity or opportunity, the Israeli Government may see this as the right moment to reassess its approach to negotiations with the Palestinians. Until this week, the assumption of the right-leaning coalition and its right-leaning voters has been that time is on their side. However unrealistic that may have been in the long run, now the short run is rapidly catching up with them.

This week it's Tunisia, but remember Zimbabwe?

Tunisia is in the middle of a stunning, popular revolution, and democracy advocates are pushing for Egypt to be next. The leader of Cote d'Ivoire refuses to cede power following his electoral defeat. South Sudan is on the verge of independence and possibly further violence.

One man has special reason to be pleased with this turn of events: Robert Mugabe, the onetime revolutionary turned corrupt despot, who has overstayed his tenure as President of Zimbabwe. Remember him? I had almost forgotten about him. Last autumn, all eyes were on Zimbabwe, where Mugabe was violating the terms of his power-sharing arrangement with the winners of the last election. He is no longer the Most Despised African Leader, and Zimbabwe is not even in the news.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted this week that he was caught off guard by the democratic fervor in Tunisia, a former French colony. So were we all. Every now and then, there are mass demonstrations throughout Africa and the Middle East, and Western leaders cannot afford to risk security and economic stability on the chance that one freedom movement might succeed. But we do love to celebrate their success, after the fact.

Will nations commit more funds to developing civil society internationally, as a result of Tunisia's early success, the challenges of Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, or the near-totalitarian stasis in Egypt? Will they make democracy and human freedom true priorities of their foreign policy? What put Tunisia over the top was its own population and its own civil society, not some organized strategy of the international community.

Tunisia, Sudan, Cote d'Ivoire: Opportunities for Africa

Change is sweeping across Africa this month, from Tunisia in the north to Sudan a little south, to sub-Saharan Cote d'Ivoire.

None of these unfolding and uncertain situations is linked. But their cumulative impact of Arab, Middle East and African politics is significant. The public is becoming more hopeful and confident, while dictators are torn between giving in to popular demands and locking down further. Did the regime in Tunisia fail to open up in time, or was the response to protestors too soft?

Even though these events are influencing the perspectives of the rulers and the governed across the region, every country has its own specific circumstances and considerations.

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak has carefully quashed the secular opposition, so the only viable alternative to his party is the Muslim Brotherhood. This makes Mubarak the bulwark against extremists, but it also makes it more likely that any post-Mubarak government might be run by radical Muslims. And Mubarak has doubled down by promoting his son to be his successor.

Politically, Sudan is uncharted territory. Southern Sudan's referendum could lead to the first split of an African since... Eritrea? It won't be pretty, but it also involves a genocidal dictator, so there's another blow for "democracy" or self-determination, if the south succeeds.

Cote d'Ivoire was coming out from under civil war and some latter-day French imperialism, then its president decided to ignore the results of an election that would have ended his tenure. Because of the turmoil in Sudan and a swath of failed states in central Africa, the African Union and Western powers are already pressuring President Gbagbo to step down before the road to stability is washed away in a spiral of violence and poverty.

Word is, President Obama plans to focus more on foreign policy and on Africa specifically this year. Just the holding of the Sudan referendum was a tribute to U.S. diplomacy, so the timing couldn't be better. Let's hope the results measure up.