Tweet
DEBATING DAVOS: PREENING, MONSTROSITY, OR PUNCTILIO?
Mondoweiss
http://www.philipweiss.org/ mondoweiss/2009/01/debating-davos-preening-monstro sity-or-punctilio.html
Jan 30 2009
Here's a dialogue about the Davos incident between Laurence Zuckerman
and Phil Weiss:
Zuckerman: I happened to watch the Davos panel on C-Span last
night. The portrayal of Erdogan's actions as a walkout are not exactly
correct. He tried to continue speaking after the event ended. David
Ignatius, the moderator, tried to stop him. Erdogan would not relent,
promising to speak only for a moment. After he spoke for a while
and announced that he had made point no. 1, Ignatius stepped in
forcefully. The panel was way over and Erdogan was the only one given
a second chance to speak. When it was clear that they were going to
cut off his mike, Erdogan got up and stalked off saying he would not
return to Davos again. I had never seen Erdogan before but he struck
me as a posturing and preening pol. I was not surprised to learn that
Turkish elections are imminent.
[this is still Zuckerman] Here is a more detailed description of the
panel: Each of the big wigs spoke starting with Ban Ki Moon followed
by Erdogan followed by Abr Moussa and finally Peres. By the time
Peres got a chance to speak it was an hour of attacks on Israel in
rising level of vehemence. It felt like Peres had to wait a long time
to respond. When he finished, they were already way over time and
dinner was waiting. Erdogan insisted on speaking. Ignatius said no,
fairly firmly. It went back and forth and it wasn't clear whether Klaus
Schwab, the organizer of World Economic Forum signaled to Ignatius to
relent. Erdogan promised him a minute and Ignatius said he would hold
him to it. Erdogan had spoken for 2 minutes or more when he finished
point no. 1. Erdogan claimed that Peres had more time to speak but
I don't think that is the case. In any event. there is no doubt that
between Erdogan, Moussa, and Ban, all the grievances against Israel
were aired. As the only head of a government present, Erdogan may
have felt he didn't get the respect he deserved but he was being a
prima donna. Peres gave a forceful rebuttal and challenged Erdogan
on his facts a few times so Erdogan might have felt it was a matter
of honor to reply but he didn't directly address Peres's charges.
Weiss: I only watched a few minutes. I think you're talking about
context here. I get your point about timing. It was hard for me to
sense who felt more aggrieved in that bit, it felt like Peres had
been holding back and finally let loose, and had the crowd. And
I could see Erdogan going on too long. It seems like Ignatius was
rude. What's wrong with letting him have his say?
I would stick by walkout. He did walk out, and Times characterized
it as same in headline, and he said that he was never coming back.
The whole thing strikes me as one of those great theatrical moments
that will be played and replayed, and I haven't even watched it in
full. It's like Clarence Thomas v Anita Hill. Of course I took sides
then, and you know, notwithstanding everything I'm on Erdogan's side
here. Even with the Armenian genocide.
Zuckerman: I don't think the crowd was with Peres more than the
others. In fact, I think Ban Ki Moon, Erdogan, and Moussa each got
a lot of enthusiastic applause. I was curious to see how the crowd
would react to Peres, who spoke last, so I listened carefully. He
got applause but slightly less than the others, I thought.
Ignatius's role was tricky. We have all been at panels where the
moderator lays back and it goes off the rails. I have no insight
but to me it seemed like Ignatius was enforcing the organizer's
agenda. The event had gone over time. Dinner was waiting. it was an
emotional topic, they had each had their say. It seemed unfair to
let Erdogan filibuster unless you were willing to let them all have
another round, which I agree might not have been a bad thing. Perhaps
Ignatius should have appealed directly to the organizers. But I bet
there was communication there. I would love to know what message
Ignatius was getting from Schwab, who was there, and came up to the
podium after Erdogan stalked off to smooth things over.
I know you are sympathetic to Erdogan and I don't usually buy into the
everything-Israel-does-is-criticized argument, but I do think there
is a bit of a double standard here. It was Peres who was actually
personally insulted by Erdogan. (Peres said that Erdogan had his
facts wrong; Erdogan called Peres a joyful murderer.) Imagine if
after being attacked by the three speakers and then having his say,
Peres stalked off. He would get no sympathy.
The idea that Turkey's honor was somehow compromised is absurd and
obvious to anyone who would take the time to watch the event.
Oh, and Ignatius's question to each was how to get the peace process
back on track. It was supposed to be constructive.
Weiss: You know, not having watched it, I do feel like, This is
about slaughtering civilians. Period. Where is the international
response? Here it is, from a (former?) ally. Since I find Gaza
monstrous, and an insult to the peace process, such as it is, or has
been, I honor all efforts to publicize it and condemn it. I don't
think the Hamas attacks excuse what Israel did in any way. Americans
learned this in Iraq, where we have shown some minor accountability on
the Haditha massacre. I'm sure Slobodan also had his provocations. So
that's why I'm with Erdogan.
And it's also why I find Ignatius's punctilio under the circumstances
absurd. The emotion in these leaders was real, and the little guys
should have gotten out of the way. It would have been better if Peres
had talked about Armenian genocide, and American ethnic cleansing
of Indians...
Zuckerman: Your position is understandable given your feelings but in
the end the way to prevent future loss and help the people of Gaza
is a durable peace. Hanging Israelis as war criminals, however much
you think it is justified, is not going to get you there. Let's stop
the bloodshed.
Erdogan is calculating and cynical. The guy is running for election. Do
you think he is surprised by the reaction he has elicited at home? I
am sure he would kiss Peres on both cheeks -- and has probably already
kissed worse people -- if it were in his interest.
Mondoweiss
http://www.philipweiss.org/ mondoweiss/2009/01/debating-davos-preening-monstro sity-or-punctilio.html
Jan 30 2009
Here's a dialogue about the Davos incident between Laurence Zuckerman
and Phil Weiss:
Zuckerman: I happened to watch the Davos panel on C-Span last
night. The portrayal of Erdogan's actions as a walkout are not exactly
correct. He tried to continue speaking after the event ended. David
Ignatius, the moderator, tried to stop him. Erdogan would not relent,
promising to speak only for a moment. After he spoke for a while
and announced that he had made point no. 1, Ignatius stepped in
forcefully. The panel was way over and Erdogan was the only one given
a second chance to speak. When it was clear that they were going to
cut off his mike, Erdogan got up and stalked off saying he would not
return to Davos again. I had never seen Erdogan before but he struck
me as a posturing and preening pol. I was not surprised to learn that
Turkish elections are imminent.
[this is still Zuckerman] Here is a more detailed description of the
panel: Each of the big wigs spoke starting with Ban Ki Moon followed
by Erdogan followed by Abr Moussa and finally Peres. By the time
Peres got a chance to speak it was an hour of attacks on Israel in
rising level of vehemence. It felt like Peres had to wait a long time
to respond. When he finished, they were already way over time and
dinner was waiting. Erdogan insisted on speaking. Ignatius said no,
fairly firmly. It went back and forth and it wasn't clear whether Klaus
Schwab, the organizer of World Economic Forum signaled to Ignatius to
relent. Erdogan promised him a minute and Ignatius said he would hold
him to it. Erdogan had spoken for 2 minutes or more when he finished
point no. 1. Erdogan claimed that Peres had more time to speak but
I don't think that is the case. In any event. there is no doubt that
between Erdogan, Moussa, and Ban, all the grievances against Israel
were aired. As the only head of a government present, Erdogan may
have felt he didn't get the respect he deserved but he was being a
prima donna. Peres gave a forceful rebuttal and challenged Erdogan
on his facts a few times so Erdogan might have felt it was a matter
of honor to reply but he didn't directly address Peres's charges.
Weiss: I only watched a few minutes. I think you're talking about
context here. I get your point about timing. It was hard for me to
sense who felt more aggrieved in that bit, it felt like Peres had
been holding back and finally let loose, and had the crowd. And
I could see Erdogan going on too long. It seems like Ignatius was
rude. What's wrong with letting him have his say?
I would stick by walkout. He did walk out, and Times characterized
it as same in headline, and he said that he was never coming back.
The whole thing strikes me as one of those great theatrical moments
that will be played and replayed, and I haven't even watched it in
full. It's like Clarence Thomas v Anita Hill. Of course I took sides
then, and you know, notwithstanding everything I'm on Erdogan's side
here. Even with the Armenian genocide.
Zuckerman: I don't think the crowd was with Peres more than the
others. In fact, I think Ban Ki Moon, Erdogan, and Moussa each got
a lot of enthusiastic applause. I was curious to see how the crowd
would react to Peres, who spoke last, so I listened carefully. He
got applause but slightly less than the others, I thought.
Ignatius's role was tricky. We have all been at panels where the
moderator lays back and it goes off the rails. I have no insight
but to me it seemed like Ignatius was enforcing the organizer's
agenda. The event had gone over time. Dinner was waiting. it was an
emotional topic, they had each had their say. It seemed unfair to
let Erdogan filibuster unless you were willing to let them all have
another round, which I agree might not have been a bad thing. Perhaps
Ignatius should have appealed directly to the organizers. But I bet
there was communication there. I would love to know what message
Ignatius was getting from Schwab, who was there, and came up to the
podium after Erdogan stalked off to smooth things over.
I know you are sympathetic to Erdogan and I don't usually buy into the
everything-Israel-does-is-criticized argument, but I do think there
is a bit of a double standard here. It was Peres who was actually
personally insulted by Erdogan. (Peres said that Erdogan had his
facts wrong; Erdogan called Peres a joyful murderer.) Imagine if
after being attacked by the three speakers and then having his say,
Peres stalked off. He would get no sympathy.
The idea that Turkey's honor was somehow compromised is absurd and
obvious to anyone who would take the time to watch the event.
Oh, and Ignatius's question to each was how to get the peace process
back on track. It was supposed to be constructive.
Weiss: You know, not having watched it, I do feel like, This is
about slaughtering civilians. Period. Where is the international
response? Here it is, from a (former?) ally. Since I find Gaza
monstrous, and an insult to the peace process, such as it is, or has
been, I honor all efforts to publicize it and condemn it. I don't
think the Hamas attacks excuse what Israel did in any way. Americans
learned this in Iraq, where we have shown some minor accountability on
the Haditha massacre. I'm sure Slobodan also had his provocations. So
that's why I'm with Erdogan.
And it's also why I find Ignatius's punctilio under the circumstances
absurd. The emotion in these leaders was real, and the little guys
should have gotten out of the way. It would have been better if Peres
had talked about Armenian genocide, and American ethnic cleansing
of Indians...
Zuckerman: Your position is understandable given your feelings but in
the end the way to prevent future loss and help the people of Gaza
is a durable peace. Hanging Israelis as war criminals, however much
you think it is justified, is not going to get you there. Let's stop
the bloodshed.
Erdogan is calculating and cynical. The guy is running for election. Do
you think he is surprised by the reaction he has elicited at home? I
am sure he would kiss Peres on both cheeks -- and has probably already
kissed worse people -- if it were in his interest.