A smarter Andrew?… Can he make the grade as a realist?

Yesterday, the Dish had a post called “AIPAC’s Latest Email,” which Andrew explains as evidence of

the new campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to demonize Turkey and equate this critical bridge between West and East with Ahmadinejad and Assad. Why? Because Turkey has criticized Israel, of course.

Really?… So that’s what Turkey has done: gone all J-Street on us.

Here’s the email:

The email as Andrew reproduces it — he blocks out the recipient’s email address — seems like a private one from AIPAC’s spokesperson Josh Block to his personal acquaintances, probably not congressmen.

Block pretty much just passes along a video lampooning Erdogan, Ahmadinejad, and Assad, with 3 actors who sing self-incriminating opera lyrics as “The Three Terrors.”

This is a campaign of demonization? The subject line of the email begins “Funny Video!!” and that’s basically what Block’s email says. Is that all an AIPAC representative has to do for Andrew to accuse AIPAC of demonization — email, say, a dozen acquaintances with a link to a comedy routine and opine that it is a “funny video”?

I realize now that Andrew would accuse me of a demonization campaign against South Korean zoos, if I shared this on Facebook:

Actually, the bear thing is kind of sad. Also sad is that the Dish still has not addressed its probable libel against AIPAC, which also seems to have to do with private emails.

Anyway, for a person so incensed that AIPAC would dare attack “this critical bridge between West and East,” Andrew seems to have thought very little about what would be viewed as an attack from Turkey’s perspective. It seems he’s only interested in obvious digs from Jewish organizations, since they are Western and thus have the power to affect foreign affairs.

In a recent post called “Smarter Israel,” Andrew leaves us to wonder whether he is being  ironic on the level of Andy Kaufmann, because the post seems written to prove Andrew is utterly inept as a realist, in either a pro-Israel or Israelophobic sense. Here is the whole thing:

Now this is a better idea: a rival flotilla from Israel to Turkey to bring humanitarian relief to the Kurds, a people deprived of a homeland just as the Palestinians are. See what a little imagination can do in the war of ideas? A lot better than shooting nineteen-year-olds in the head at point blank range.

Both Shimon Peres and Daniel Larrison would blush.

Let’s consider the ways that the government of Israel’s encouraging such an action by its citizens might not represent Israel’s “smarts” or be in the West’s interests:

(1) Does Andrew realize that this would alienate Turkey against Israel as much if not more than the Mavi Marmara boarding?

Delivering aid to Kurds in an area that contains militant groups would be considered an inflammatory, even pro-seccessionist gesture — probably read as an act of war for indirectly supporting Kurdish terrorism against Turkey.

Duh, you poor pundit for the Atlantic, duh.

(2) Does Andrew want to risk a military action against the Israeli ship, thereby precipitating a war between Israel and Turkey … and whatever Muslim powers decide to help Turkey?

Hasn’t the Dish been screaming that the prime danger to U.S. security is Israel starting WW3 (with an attack on Iran)?

(3) Does Andrew wish to prove to the Turks and the Kurds and everyone in the Middle East that Israel is entirely cynical and only manipulates its professed humanism to increase its power?

(Don’t answer that.)

(4) Does Andrew want Israel to help the electoral prospects of the PM’s Islamist party, which will be less disposed to helping the US than the secular opposition party? (BTW, the secular opposition party was leading in the polls the week before the IHH stunt.)

(5) Does Andrew want to bring a wave of new accusations against the Kurds in Turkey, accusations of dual loyalty and of being foreign agents, increasing the backlash against Kurds and other minorities in Turkey?

(6) Does he want to enrage the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq with the possible effects on the situation of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq?

(7) If the U.S. is not forced to condemn Israel for delivering aid to Kurds, then the U.S. — in crediting Israel with “smarts” and just playing tit-for-tat — would be identified as not having real opposition to Kurdish separatism.

(a) Does he realize that Kurdish secession from Turkey is not the position of the United States nor the moderate Kurdish compromise position? Does he want the U.S. to deal a blow to one of the most moderate factions in the Middle East and increase the influence of their fanatics?

(b) Does he realize this would increase the Muslim world’s perception that the West is punishing Turkey for its dissent, and it wants Turkey as its Muslim dog, and nothing else?

(8) Does he realize that the U.S. still needs Turkey to host America’s missile defense apparatus?

I don’t think a Kurdish aid flotilla is a good idea for private citizens of Israel to invest in,  and I think the Kurds may even view it as insulting. However, the prospect that the State of Israel engineers or gives support to such a mission would be disastrous — quite the opposite of showing a “smarter Israel.”

Andrew says he’s a (non-amoral) realist on the Middle East … I’m sure none of the questions above seemed very important when he was able to commend a hypothetical policy action different from the actual course of action Israel chose, noting how Israel killed a young man. This gigantic lapse in critical thinking might be a tribute to Andrew’s “Israel derangement syndrome,” a phrase he tried to rechristen with similarly embarrassing results.

As an American, I’m glad that for all its historical errors, Israel does not take the recommendations of a “smarter” course from such psychologically biased dumb asses.


One Response

  1. […] simple hit to the pocketbook. No need to manipulate the Kurds, appear like cynical monsters and provoke Turkey into beckoning WW3 — sorry, Andrew … it’s the thought that […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: