Commentary Magazine


Posts For: January 27, 2013

Illustrating the Link Between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

The Commentator draws our attention today to the fact that Britain’s Sunday Times celebrated the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—the date that is observed outside of Israel and the United States as Holocaust Memorial Day—by publishing a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hook-nosed thug cementing helpless Arab victims into a wall whose bricks are lined with blood rather than mortar. This is an apt reminder of just how low Europe’s intellectual elites have sunk and how deep the taint of anti-Semitism is baked into the political culture of the West these days. As the Commentator’s Raheem Kassam points out, in Britain as in many other places, the Holocaust is not a historical lesson of the product of 2,000 years of anti-Semitism and Jewish powerlessness as it is an excuse to depict Israel as a Nazi-like entity.

The cartoon will be defended as fair comment about Israel’s security fence that the Palestinians and their foreign cheerleaders depict as a war crime. That this strictly defensive measure was made necessary by the Palestinians’ campaign of suicide bombings that cost the lives of a thousand Jews in the last decade goes unmentioned. The willingness of Israel-bashers to appropriate the Holocaust to promote a new generation of anti-Semitic imagery is rooted in a worldview in which the actions of the Palestinians, or their consistent refusal to make peace, are irrelevant. If even a fence to keep out suicide bombers can be seen as criminal then it is obvious that no terrorist outrage or act of hateful incitement (such as the Egyptian president’s belief that Israelis are the “descendants of apes and pigs”) is worthy of censure so long as Israelis are standing up for themselves and refusing to be slaughtered as the Jews of Europe were 70 years ago.

Read More

The Commentator draws our attention today to the fact that Britain’s Sunday Times celebrated the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—the date that is observed outside of Israel and the United States as Holocaust Memorial Day—by publishing a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a hook-nosed thug cementing helpless Arab victims into a wall whose bricks are lined with blood rather than mortar. This is an apt reminder of just how low Europe’s intellectual elites have sunk and how deep the taint of anti-Semitism is baked into the political culture of the West these days. As the Commentator’s Raheem Kassam points out, in Britain as in many other places, the Holocaust is not a historical lesson of the product of 2,000 years of anti-Semitism and Jewish powerlessness as it is an excuse to depict Israel as a Nazi-like entity.

The cartoon will be defended as fair comment about Israel’s security fence that the Palestinians and their foreign cheerleaders depict as a war crime. That this strictly defensive measure was made necessary by the Palestinians’ campaign of suicide bombings that cost the lives of a thousand Jews in the last decade goes unmentioned. The willingness of Israel-bashers to appropriate the Holocaust to promote a new generation of anti-Semitic imagery is rooted in a worldview in which the actions of the Palestinians, or their consistent refusal to make peace, are irrelevant. If even a fence to keep out suicide bombers can be seen as criminal then it is obvious that no terrorist outrage or act of hateful incitement (such as the Egyptian president’s belief that Israelis are the “descendants of apes and pigs”) is worthy of censure so long as Israelis are standing up for themselves and refusing to be slaughtered as the Jews of Europe were 70 years ago.

In the face of slanders such as this cartoon about Netanyahu, the facts are almost beside the point. In order for it to be considered a defensible point of view about the Middle East, you’d have to believe the artist and the editors who condoned its publication know nothing of why Israel built a security fence or that the terrorist campaign that it was built to stop was preceded by repeated Israeli offers of a Palestinian state that were refused and answered with war. Can it be that no one at the Sunday Times is aware of the fact that the Palestinians again refused (or rather fled from it to avoid answering) an even more generous peace offer in 2008 and have consistently refused to return to the negotiating table since then despite an Israeli settlement freeze, Netanyahu’s acceptance of a two-state solution and pleas for them to talk without preconditions? Those are mere details to be ignored when the big picture you are trying to draw is of an evil Israel and its evil leader hurting the innocent.

While many have seized on the fact that Netanyahu didn’t do as well as originally expected in this last week’s election as somehow being proof that Israelis are rejecting his views about the Palestinians, this is nonsense. The point about the election is that Netanyahu’s basic views about the peace process are now so clearly endorsed by a broad consensus that encompasses not only the Israeli right but also the center and even some on the left that the election was decided on other issues. Though some would like it to be different, there’s actually very little to differentiate Netanyahu’s foreign policy views from those of Yair Lapid or even Labor’s Shelly Yacimovich or Tzipi Livni, who actually campaigned on a platform of reviving the peace process.

The point is most Israelis have long given up on the Palestinians, whom they rightly understand to be light years away from the sort of sea change that would allow them to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn. So, too, do they no longer listen to a Europe where blood libels like the Sunday Times cartoon are seen as commonplace and just a more sophisticated version of Morsi’s hate speech.

Israel is not perfect and its politicians can be criticized. But this commemoration of Europe’s Holocaust Memorial Day with such slanders shows the inability of those who believe Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian dispute without resorting to imagery like that of the cartoon or Morsi’s imprecations. Though Israel-bashers claim labeling them as anti-Semites is unfair, their reflexive use of Nazi-like blood libels illustrates the link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism better than any argument their opponents can muster.

Read Less

Pakistan Should Fear U.S. Afghan Pullout

When U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan “on schedule,” Afghanistan will revert to civil war. White House and Pentagon officials may have convinced themselves that their transition mirrors that in Iraq, and that Iraq’s transition was a success, but to Afghans, the U.S. strategy is a cookie-cutter repeat of the Soviet withdrawal. We have the Afghan Local Police, and the Soviets had similar local militias. We hope that we can leave behind agents of influence in the government, and the Soviets tried the same tactic.

The Soviet-era dictator Najibullah managed to hold on to power for three years after the Red Army’s withdrawal, but that was only because of the Soviet ‘peace dividend’: The Soviet Union provided Najibullah with almost $3 billion a year and equipment it withdrew from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Only when the money ran out did Najibullah fall. The same will happen with Hamid Karzai. Even the most sobering World Bank reports regarding what the international community must do to keep Afghanistan afloat assume that Afghanistan will have a functioning mining industry, but insecurity and poor infrastructure have hampered even the Chinese, who do not care as much if they lose civilian contractors.

Read More

When U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan “on schedule,” Afghanistan will revert to civil war. White House and Pentagon officials may have convinced themselves that their transition mirrors that in Iraq, and that Iraq’s transition was a success, but to Afghans, the U.S. strategy is a cookie-cutter repeat of the Soviet withdrawal. We have the Afghan Local Police, and the Soviets had similar local militias. We hope that we can leave behind agents of influence in the government, and the Soviets tried the same tactic.

The Soviet-era dictator Najibullah managed to hold on to power for three years after the Red Army’s withdrawal, but that was only because of the Soviet ‘peace dividend’: The Soviet Union provided Najibullah with almost $3 billion a year and equipment it withdrew from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany. Only when the money ran out did Najibullah fall. The same will happen with Hamid Karzai. Even the most sobering World Bank reports regarding what the international community must do to keep Afghanistan afloat assume that Afghanistan will have a functioning mining industry, but insecurity and poor infrastructure have hampered even the Chinese, who do not care as much if they lose civilian contractors.

So, as soon as the money dries up—and it will happen faster than Karzai realizes—the Afghanistan National Army will implode. While the Pentagon points to metrics of numbers trained, it does not speak as often about retention. Logistics, triage, and intelligence remain challenges absent U.S. oversight. And while the Afghans have fought ably against Taliban assaults in Kabul and the Afghan special forces are excellent, Afghans have never had an opportunity to prove what they can do (or cannot do) when they are running the Corps level alone. The fact that regional states have reactivated their residual links to warlords should be a sign no one in the White House should ignore.

When the chaos starts, it will be worse in some respects. Just as with the Taliban’s rise in the 1990s, the main victories will not be on the battlefield so much as the result of momentum, and so will catch the West by surprise. During the Soviet era and its aftermath, the fighting was limited to Afghanistan itself. The next round of civil war likely will not be. Pakistan should get ready: It will soon learn the meaning of blowback. There is no doubt that the Pakistanis will face blowback for their support of radicals and Taliban terrorism. The issue is not that various Taliban groups will take their fight into Pakistan. There, the Pakistanis will continue to contain the Taliban’s challenge largely to the tribal region. Rather, with the Americans gone, there will be no more restraint on the reconstituted Northern Alliance. Years ago, I had a conversation with one in a position to actually implement what he said: He argued that the only way to get the Pakistanis to stop interfering in Afghanistan was not to meet them at the diplomatic table or ply them with aid and incentives, but to respond in kind. If a bomb goes off in Kabul, he suggested, then one should go off in Lahore. And if an attack occurs in Jalalabad, then there should be two such attacks in Rawalpindi.

When, back in 1997, I was a teaching assistant for an American political history course at Yale University, I took a colleague’s suggestion and asked the students in my section what their earliest political memory was: The earliest any of the 18-21 year olds had? Michael Dukakis in 1988. Americans’ political memory seldom extends back more than a decade. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is longer. Many Afghans and Pakistanis remember that, throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, it was the Afghans who were the aggressors across the border, tearing down Pakistani flags and raising the banner of Pushtunistan. This time, history will repeat, but with far greater lethality against ordinary citizens. Perhaps Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence will rue the day they decided to send terrorists into Afghanistan.

Read Less

Note to Palin: GOP Needs More than a Mouth

As expected, Fox News cut its ties with Sarah Palin on Friday. The former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate had worn out her welcome at the network over the last year and her brand had lost a lot of its pizzazz after sitting out the 2012 presidential contest and new conservative voices had come to the fore. Though she remains a cult favorite among some on the right and a convenient punching bag for the left, in a party with a large cast of rising stars like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and with Rand Paul looking to expand his appeal beyond his father’s libertarian base, her hold on the affections of the Tea Party and/or the GOP base looks tenuous at best. It’s likely that Fox decided she was yesterday’s news.

Palin is taking the blow with her customary defiance. In her first interview since the announcement, she channeled John Paul Jones as she told Breitbart News that she “hadn’t yet begun to fight.”  She spoke about the need for conservatives to go outside their comfort zone and to stop “preaching to the choir.” That’s good advice, though it’s hard to see how anyone as polarizing as Palin is going to get moderates to listen to anything she has to say.

While it’s not clear what her next step is, anyone who writes her off completely is bound to wind up looking silly. She lost a lot of her credibility when she resigned her governorship and then made a number of puzzling career choices, which did nothing but further marginalize her as a serious political figure. But the raw political talent that dazzled so many conservatives in 2008 is still there, even if she spent the last four years acting like a reality TV show star and alienating many people who once wished her well. The problem for Palin is not in finding another platform for her views (something that is all but a given in this era of social media and proliferating political websites) but that if she still harbors an ambition to be more than just another talking head, she’s going to have to something more than talk.

Read More

As expected, Fox News cut its ties with Sarah Palin on Friday. The former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate had worn out her welcome at the network over the last year and her brand had lost a lot of its pizzazz after sitting out the 2012 presidential contest and new conservative voices had come to the fore. Though she remains a cult favorite among some on the right and a convenient punching bag for the left, in a party with a large cast of rising stars like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and with Rand Paul looking to expand his appeal beyond his father’s libertarian base, her hold on the affections of the Tea Party and/or the GOP base looks tenuous at best. It’s likely that Fox decided she was yesterday’s news.

Palin is taking the blow with her customary defiance. In her first interview since the announcement, she channeled John Paul Jones as she told Breitbart News that she “hadn’t yet begun to fight.”  She spoke about the need for conservatives to go outside their comfort zone and to stop “preaching to the choir.” That’s good advice, though it’s hard to see how anyone as polarizing as Palin is going to get moderates to listen to anything she has to say.

While it’s not clear what her next step is, anyone who writes her off completely is bound to wind up looking silly. She lost a lot of her credibility when she resigned her governorship and then made a number of puzzling career choices, which did nothing but further marginalize her as a serious political figure. But the raw political talent that dazzled so many conservatives in 2008 is still there, even if she spent the last four years acting like a reality TV show star and alienating many people who once wished her well. The problem for Palin is not in finding another platform for her views (something that is all but a given in this era of social media and proliferating political websites) but that if she still harbors an ambition to be more than just another talking head, she’s going to have to something more than talk.

Palin’s shrinking fan base still hopes she will return to the fray in 2016. Her spring tour of the East Coast in 2011 just as the presidential race was starting demonstrated that she hadn’t lost her star power even if she seemed as unprepared as ever to face the scrutiny of a hostile press. But as the Republican Party licks its wounds from its second defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, most of those who will be considered for the job of leading it back to the White House have one thing in common that Palin lacks: job resumes that show that they either have the guts to fight the Democrats in Washington as Rubio, Ryan and Paul are doing or a record of showing how Republicans can run a state on conservative principles, as Jindal and Christie are proving.

Each of them has different virtues as well as different faults, but all have spent the time since Obama was first elected on the frontlines of the battle against liberalism. It may be that not having a job is something of an advantage in a presidential campaign, but as the years go by the more Palin has taken on the aspect of a celebrity rather than a politician, let alone a political thinker. Celebrity counts a lot in our day and age, but it cannot transform a person who has done everything in her power not to be taken seriously into the sort of person whom Republicans, let alone the general electorate, will trust with the fate of the nation.

Sarah Palin is still a relatively young woman and has a long career of advocacy in front of her. But if she really wants to get back in the political arena, at some point she’s going to have to demonstrate that she’s capable of doing something more than run her mouth. Facebook postings and Internet videos don’t compare well to running a state or standing up to the Democrats in Congress. Unless she decides to get back in the fight somewhere other than on the radio or TV, the odds are she’s going to spend 2016 and every other subsequent presidential year the same place she spent 2012: on the sidelines with fewer and fewer people paying attention to what she says or does.

Read Less

Will Turkey Join Iran and North Korea on the Terror Finance List?

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy and an expert on the confluence of money laundering and terrorism, drew my attention to an important story getting lost in the shuffle of confirmation hearing and more violent stories from the Middle East:

The Turkish parliament is scrambling to avert action by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body meant to combat money laundering and terror financing, which would place Turkey on its blacklist if it does not adopt legislation preventing terror finance within a month.

Read More

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy and an expert on the confluence of money laundering and terrorism, drew my attention to an important story getting lost in the shuffle of confirmation hearing and more violent stories from the Middle East:

The Turkish parliament is scrambling to avert action by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body meant to combat money laundering and terror financing, which would place Turkey on its blacklist if it does not adopt legislation preventing terror finance within a month.

Hürriyet Daily News quotes Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin:

There are two countries on the black list of the FATF: Iran and North Korea. If Turkey fails to adopt the legislation by Feb. 22, the Turkish economy may face serious problems. In such a case money transfers from and to Turkey would be possible only after checks by the FATF’s examination mechanism. This mechanism would cause serious problems for Turkey’s exports, imports and hot money flow, which could lead to negative impacts on general parameters of our economy.

The only thing sadder than the fact that Turkey, which claims to be an ally, must be dragged kicking and screaming to stop financing terror is the fact that 150 congressmen have endorsed a country that may soon join the Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea on the terror financing blacklist. When President Obama described Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan as a personal friend, it is time to ask whether Obama truly understands the differences between ally and adversary.

Read Less

Scott Shane’s Shame

John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who pled guilty to one count of leaking information, was sentenced on Friday to 30 months in prison. I have known John for almost two decades since I was a State Department intern in Bahrain at a time he served there. Even though we have often been on different sides of the issues, work has often led us to cross paths and, because of mutual friends, we have also seen each other socially on sporadic occasion. While I do not defend the crime to which Kiriakou has plead guilty and has now been sentenced, as often in these matters, I suspect the case is more complicated than that depicted in the press. With so much material classified, it can be near impossible to present a defense if most of the material upon which the defense would be based cannot be used because it is rightly or wrongly classified. There certainly seems to be ample evidence that the prosecution was selective. While that does not mitigate the wrong, it should raise questions if the FBI identified other leaks in the same case involving far more material released by another but which the CIA chose not to pursue.

The public learned more background about both Kiriakou and the case on January 6, when New York Times reporter Scott Shane published a major piece describing the case, and how the FBI nabbed Kiriakou. From the first paragraph, it is clear that Kiriakou helped Shane with the story. While The New York Times’ ombudsman has written about issues surrounding a reporter writing a story about a case in which he is a participant, if my understanding is correct, the Times’ coverage omits one crucial detail: Because he wanted to ensure a scoop, Shane apparently broke an agreement to embargo the story until after Kiriakou’s sentencing, putting at risk the ability of Kiriakou’s family—including very young children—to see their father.

Read More

John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who pled guilty to one count of leaking information, was sentenced on Friday to 30 months in prison. I have known John for almost two decades since I was a State Department intern in Bahrain at a time he served there. Even though we have often been on different sides of the issues, work has often led us to cross paths and, because of mutual friends, we have also seen each other socially on sporadic occasion. While I do not defend the crime to which Kiriakou has plead guilty and has now been sentenced, as often in these matters, I suspect the case is more complicated than that depicted in the press. With so much material classified, it can be near impossible to present a defense if most of the material upon which the defense would be based cannot be used because it is rightly or wrongly classified. There certainly seems to be ample evidence that the prosecution was selective. While that does not mitigate the wrong, it should raise questions if the FBI identified other leaks in the same case involving far more material released by another but which the CIA chose not to pursue.

The public learned more background about both Kiriakou and the case on January 6, when New York Times reporter Scott Shane published a major piece describing the case, and how the FBI nabbed Kiriakou. From the first paragraph, it is clear that Kiriakou helped Shane with the story. While The New York Times’ ombudsman has written about issues surrounding a reporter writing a story about a case in which he is a participant, if my understanding is correct, the Times’ coverage omits one crucial detail: Because he wanted to ensure a scoop, Shane apparently broke an agreement to embargo the story until after Kiriakou’s sentencing, putting at risk the ability of Kiriakou’s family—including very young children—to see their father.

One can have their own opinion about Kiriakou’s actions and responsibilities, but when the government has bankrupted the family—and when the CIA has fired the wife in retaliation for the husband’s action, it would make a huge difference financially if because of a prosecutor’s spite, the family had to get to Alaska rather than drive to Pennsylvania.

I do not know where John will serve his sentence. But if a reporter depends upon his honor to win access to sources, it is a wonder that any source would talk to the New York Times.

Read Less

No One Should Mourn Eritrea’s Fall

Last week, chaos enveloped Asmara, Eritrea’s capital as renegade troops tried to overthrow President Isaias Afewerki. It is a pity they did not succeed. Dawit Giorgis, a visiting fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD), would disagree. In an analysis he penned for FDD, he explained:

Stability in Eritrea is crucial to the region. So far, the government seems to have resisted growing pressure from Islamists in Yemen and Saudi Arabia to radicalize Eritrea, the only non-Arab country along the Red Sea coast. But as the Horn of Africa, Gulf of Guinea and the porous borders of Northern Africa become a preferred routes for arms smuggling, the future of the country remains uncertain. Internal political disarray and tensions with Ethiopia could make Eritrea especially vulnerable to the Islamist influences exerting pressures in an increasing number of African countries. Iran is rumored to have established a military base along the coast, although there has been no confirmation of such reports from Washington, Jerusalem, or Tehran. Eritrea has denied the existence of such a base. 

He is right that Eritrea is increasing strategic, but stability in Eritrea is not something to desire. While two decades ago there was hope that Afewerki might be enlightened if not democratic, he has transformed Eritrea into a prison camp. Eritrea has the dubious honor, for example, of being the only country to score below North Korea in international rankings of press freedom.

Read More

Last week, chaos enveloped Asmara, Eritrea’s capital as renegade troops tried to overthrow President Isaias Afewerki. It is a pity they did not succeed. Dawit Giorgis, a visiting fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy (FDD), would disagree. In an analysis he penned for FDD, he explained:

Stability in Eritrea is crucial to the region. So far, the government seems to have resisted growing pressure from Islamists in Yemen and Saudi Arabia to radicalize Eritrea, the only non-Arab country along the Red Sea coast. But as the Horn of Africa, Gulf of Guinea and the porous borders of Northern Africa become a preferred routes for arms smuggling, the future of the country remains uncertain. Internal political disarray and tensions with Ethiopia could make Eritrea especially vulnerable to the Islamist influences exerting pressures in an increasing number of African countries. Iran is rumored to have established a military base along the coast, although there has been no confirmation of such reports from Washington, Jerusalem, or Tehran. Eritrea has denied the existence of such a base. 

He is right that Eritrea is increasing strategic, but stability in Eritrea is not something to desire. While two decades ago there was hope that Afewerki might be enlightened if not democratic, he has transformed Eritrea into a prison camp. Eritrea has the dubious honor, for example, of being the only country to score below North Korea in international rankings of press freedom.

No effort should be spared to prevent Eritrea’s radicalization, and the extension of Saudi or Iranian influence in the region. But that Cold War should not be an excuse to forgive a regime that might possibly lay claim to be the world’s worst dictatorship.

Read Less

Is Turkey the New Pakistan?

Last week, while participating at a conference on Afghanistan at Fort Hood, I met some U.S. officers who served in Turkey a bit over a decade ago. While they clearly loved their time in Turkey, they noted how many of their Turkish counterparts had quietly fled the army and Turkey itself over the past few years. Many disagree with the Islamism which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan, and fear his arbitrary justice, as well as the blind eye so many in Europe and our own Foggy Bottom who care little so long as the victims are soldiers.

The flight of old guard Turkish officers reminds me of the flight of Pakistani officers in the wake of the 1971 loss of East Pakistan/Bangladesh when Gen. Zia ul-Haq, who came to power in 1978, accelerated Islamization as a means to build an overarching Pakistani identity. Many high-ranking Pakistani veterans, uncomfortable with religious radicalization, fled Pakistan. Whereas the Turkish military, at least until a few years ago, served as the bulwark against Islamic radicalism in society, the Pakistani military—under which Pakistani intelligence falls—became the catalyst for radicalization. Several decades later, Pakistani is a state sponsor of terrorism in all but name.

Read More

Last week, while participating at a conference on Afghanistan at Fort Hood, I met some U.S. officers who served in Turkey a bit over a decade ago. While they clearly loved their time in Turkey, they noted how many of their Turkish counterparts had quietly fled the army and Turkey itself over the past few years. Many disagree with the Islamism which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan, and fear his arbitrary justice, as well as the blind eye so many in Europe and our own Foggy Bottom who care little so long as the victims are soldiers.

The flight of old guard Turkish officers reminds me of the flight of Pakistani officers in the wake of the 1971 loss of East Pakistan/Bangladesh when Gen. Zia ul-Haq, who came to power in 1978, accelerated Islamization as a means to build an overarching Pakistani identity. Many high-ranking Pakistani veterans, uncomfortable with religious radicalization, fled Pakistan. Whereas the Turkish military, at least until a few years ago, served as the bulwark against Islamic radicalism in society, the Pakistani military—under which Pakistani intelligence falls—became the catalyst for radicalization. Several decades later, Pakistani is a state sponsor of terrorism in all but name.

Erdoǧan has made no secret of his desire to Islamize Turkey, and it is now clear that the country’s military is a shadow of its former self. Many of the generals who saw Turkey as a Western country or one that would honor the separation of mosque and state are now retired, in exile, or in prison. The few who remain are muzzled or Quislings. Most live in constant fear. Many of the new recruits and mid-rank officers are conservative Muslims if not Islamists. The Turkish intelligence service is also in the hands of political Islamists. While the State Department seldom criticizes Turkey’s role in the Middle East, many Kurds accuse Turkey of sponsoring outright Jihadist elements in Syria in an effort to counter secular ethnic nationalism among the Syrian Kurds. In a sense, Turkey is sponsoring Islamism abroad in the same way that Pakistan, fearing Pashtun nationalism, only allowed supply to groups in Afghanistan that made Islam their chief identity.

The parallels continue: While Zia ul Haq sponsored scores of madrasas to radicalize permanently Pakistan’s education system and, with time, its bureaucracy, Erdoǧan too now prioritizes the Imam Hatips, Turkey’s equivalent. The results will be felt in the decades to come. And while Zia used the state media to incite virulent anti-Western conspiracies and hatred, Erdoǧan seems intent to do the same thing as he consolidates control over the media and infuses it with anti-American and anti-Semitic poison.

How ironic it is that while the White House praises the “Turkish model,” Turkey itself seems intent on following the Pakistani model.  

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.