Posts
20 hours ago
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Israel Matzav: HRW researcher Marc Garlasco: Nazi fetishist or ‘serious military historian’?
HRW researcher Marc Garlasco: Nazi fetishist or ‘serious military historian’?
You decide:
More here. Israel Matzav: HRW researcher Marc Garlasco: Nazi fetishist or ‘serious military historian’?
Love of the Land: Tel Aviv Tiff at TIFF
Tel Aviv Tiff at TIFF
Editorial
thestar.com
08 September 09
Here's something you may not have heard for a while: "Tel Aviv is built on destroyed Palestinian villages."
Credit for this historical observation goes to an ad hoc committee of artists and filmmakers heaping scorn on the Toronto International Film Festival for daring to program a Tel Aviv segment, as Israel's biggest city marks its 100th anniversary.
In an open letter – "The Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation" – the signatories condemn TIFF for showcasing Tel Aviv, comparing it to the way a propagandist would sanitize "white-only Cape Town or Johannesburg during apartheid."
Thankfully, the protesters are not objecting to the new TIFF Bell Lightbox, the festival's future home, being built on destroyed First Nations villages. To be sure, that would be ancient history; but why is this anti-Israel petition fixated on Partition – the 1947 United Nations plan that awarded Tel Aviv to Israel more than six decades ago? The subtext is that Tel Aviv is akin to an illegal Jewish settlement.
It is tempting to ignore this latest, tedious tiff over TIFF, spawned by a few dozen protesters who signed the petition – Jane Fonda and Naomi Klein among them. The anti-Israel diatribes are becoming a bore: Complaints against the Royal Ontario Museum for showing Israel's biblical Dead Sea Scrolls; "Israel Apartheid Week" for high-minded student activists; CUPE locals calling for a boycott of Israeli academics; and the latest Pride parade featuring a float that attacked gay-friendly Israel for apartheid policies (ignoring other Middle Eastern regimes that persecute gays).
Now TIFF is the target for those who would treat Israel as a pariah, demonize every aspect of its existence, and smear its supporters in Canada. TIFF, they imply, is in the pocket of the Jews – from both Canada and Israel. Their open letter conspicuously highlights the names of "Sidney Greenberg of Astral Media, David Asper of Canwest Global Communications and Joel Reitman of MIJO Corporation," noting ominously that TIFF is now "complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine." Cue dark clouds of conspiracy.
Replying to his accusers, TIFF co-director Cameron Bailey says he chose Tel Aviv to inaugurate an annual "City to City focus on films" that will showcase cities through a cinematic lens. TIFF took no Israeli money. The festival will also be showing films by Palestinian, Egyptian and Lebanese filmmakers when it opens this Thursday.
What a strange plot twist: Canadian filmmakers who pay lip service to free expression trying to bring the curtains down on Israeli filmmakers whose art is tainted by their Tel Aviv origins. But if the protesters are applying a litmus test to all world cities, why not castigate city hall for twinning Toronto with Chongqing, given China's human rights abuses? Or demand that Toronto sever its "friendship" links with Volgograd because of Russia's political sins?
Tel Aviv, it seems, makes for a more tempting target.
Related: All of the Jewish State ...
Love of the Land: Tel Aviv Tiff at TIFFLove of the Land: A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel
A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel
A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel, by Robin Shepherd, has now been published in the UK by Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Readers can purchase the book at the link to Amazon at the bottom of this article.
Every author wants his work to be read as widely as possible. So, I make no apology for a rather blatant piece of self-promotion here on my blog!
No country in the world has attracted as much censure and vilification in Europe in recent years as Israel. It seems to me that a more reasonable state of affairs will continue to elude us until we truly understand why this has happened.
It is up to others to assess how successful I have been in that aim. I called the book A State Beyond the Pale as a rather obvious play on words. Israel has been pushed beyond the pale of polite society across Europe. But could it be that it is Europe that is putting itself beyond the pale by immersing itself in bigotry?
Europe’s indignant opinion forming classes believe they are in a position to do the judging on this issue. They are convinced that it is they who hold the moral high ground. I beg to differ, and I seek to show how an obsessive and virulent anti-Zionism reflects deep seated weaknesses in the political culture of Europe. Europe is no position to do the judging. It does not hold the moral high ground. The great paradox is that the conflict is judging Europe. The anti-Israeli agenda tells us more about the people who are pushing it than they might care to admit.
Finally, the book does not focus on the usual suspects at the fringes. Focusing on far-Left or far-Right groups, let alone Islamist extremists, would have been to go for the easy targets. The value of such an approach would have been reduced accordingly.
A State Beyond the Pale focuses instead on anti-Israeli sentiment inside the mainstream of the public discourse. That is the core of the problem and it is there that the problem must now be addressed. So, I look forward to all your comments which are probably best directed to my email account on this site.
To purchase the book on Amazon for yourself or friends, click on the following link:
Love of the Land: A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem With Israel
Israel Matzav: Student fined 300 Euro for displaying Israeli flag in Germany
Student fined 300 Euro for displaying Israeli flag in Germany
A German student has been fined 300 Euro (about $450) for displaying an Israeli flag during a 'spontaneous demonstration' by German Muslims against Operation Cast Lead in the German city of Bochum last January. The student is appealing. According to Der Westen, a regional paper in Bochum, the public prosecutor termed the Israeli flag as "provoking" within a special situation.
The 30-year student, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she fears for his her safety due to "massive problems with Nazis", told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that the "Israeli flag is a provocation for the anti-Semites." She asked rhetorically, "What is provocative about an Israel flag?" The public prosecutor in Bochum was not available for an immediate comment on the case.
According to Der Westen, the local district court judged deemed the protest of the five activists expressing solidarity with Israel as a "dangerous situation."
A spokesman for the district court, Volker Talarowski, told the Post that there was a "violation of the right to assembly" and the court's decision was issued "independent of a political motivation." Talarowski added that the pro-Israel demonstrators failed to register their protest 48 hours before the event.
Yet the student, who is appealing the fine, said a special regulation permits "spontaneous" demonstrations without a pre-registration. In response to a hardcore anti-Israeli demonstration in Bochum attended by 1,600 protesters on January 17, the student, along with four pro-Israeli activists, displayed a banner stating "Against anti-Semitism and fascism: Solidarity with Israel" as well as the Israel flag. She told the Post that pro-Palestinian supporters "compared Israel with Nazi Germany." Chants of "children murderer Israel" and "Israel terrorist" filled the protest as well as a banner reading "stop the Holocaust in Gaza."
If this is the kind of court ruling they are coming up with now, imagine how much fun it's going to be to live in Germany when it becomes a Muslim country 20 years from now.
By the way, this is not the incident where police broke into a private apartment in the town of Duisberg and removed an Israeli flag (yes, you were thinking of that one, weren't you?). But that incident is pictured at the top of this post.
By the way, this is not the incident where police broke into a private apartment in the town of Duisberg and removed an Israeli flag (yes, you were thinking of that one, weren't you?). But that incident is pictured at the top of this post.
Israel Matzav: Student fined 300 Euro for displaying Israeli flag in Germany
Israel Matzav: 'Palestinian' activist for Hamas/Hezbullah to be honored by... Shaare Zedek hospital?
'Palestinian' activist for Hamas/Hezbullah to be honored by... Shaare Zedek hospital?
Debbie Schlussel reports on a 'Palestinian' activist for Hamas and Hezbullah, who is currently under a Federal criminal indictment in the Detroit area, who is being honored on Wednesday evening at what is apparently a parlor party in Chicago for Jerusalem's Shaare Zedek hospital (pictured). Israel Matzav: 'Palestinian' activist for Hamas/Hezbullah to be honored by... Shaare Zedek hospital?It’s Attalla’s non-stop, open involvement in Muslim-dominated organizations that openly support HAMAS and Hezbollah. It’s his close association with Hezbollah agent and anti-Semite Osama Siblani (whose family works for Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV) and FBI award revokee, marriage fraud perpetrator, and “former” Islamic terrorist Imad Hamad (of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine)–who are standing up for Attalla and heading Muslim efforts to raise money for his defense.
It’s that Attalla hosted International Solidarity Movement founder, terrorist Adam Shapiro (who gave shelter to the Islamic terrorists the night before they blew up Mike’s Bar in Tel Aviv, killing and maiming many innocent civilians), at his Canton, Michigan home. And it’s Attalla’s record of defending homicide bombings and blaming Israel for all of the violence in the Mid-East.Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Krauthammer on Obama's dumb diplomacy
Krauthammer on Obama's dumb diplomacy
On Iran cutting an oil deal with Chavez and declaring the nuclear issue non-negotiable:
Well, I think this marks the complete collapse of Obama's Iran policy. Let's remember the premise was you be nice to our adversaries, you extend a hand, and you go around the world on an apology tour.
And the administration said behind the scenes, you can't see the results now, but in time the fruits will be there. Well, let's look at the harvest.
You get Obama saying he wants to meet unconditionally with the Iranians. He holds his tongue when demonstrators are being shot in the street as a way to keep open channels with the regime, even though it sullies America's reputation of supporting democrats, especially oppressed democrats, around the world.
He apologizes in the Cairo speech for what Eisenhower had done almost 50 years ago, which, incidentally had been a condition the Iranians had put on resuming negotiations with us.
He does all of that, and what is his reward? The president of Iran announces oh, yes, I will speak with Obama, but it has to be in front of the world media, and it will be a debate. And incidentally, the nuclear issue is closed. It is not an issue.
So what does Obama get for that sweet handshake and exchange of books with Chavez at the summit? Chavez arrives in Iran, he makes an alliance, and he promises to supply gasoline. Why is that important? Because the one area where Iran is really weak is in refined petroleum. It has got a lot of crude.
But that's where we would be applying our sanctions if they don't stop their nuclear program. So what Chavez is doing is undermining in advance the only remaining economic sanction.
All of this for what the Obama administration calls "smart power." It's dumb diplomacy.
It's been suggested before that any attempt to cut off Iran's refined oil products would require the use of American warships to patrol the Straits of Hormuz to prevent their passage. From there, it's only a short step to war anyway. If Venezuela is going to supply Iran with refined oil products, that suggestion is correct.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Krauthammer on Obama's dumb diplomacy
40 fanatics go free from jail | The Sun |News
Sohail Qureshi ... arrested Oct 06 as he prepared to board flight at Heathrow to fight overseas. Possessed night-vision goggles, kit and £9k cash believed to be for jihadi fighters. Got 4 and half yrs for terror crimes but due out next month
Read All about at :
40 fanatics go free from jail The Sun News
RubinReports: The Los Angeles Times Talks About Iran and Shows Why the West is so Weak and in Apparent Decline
The Los Angeles Times Talks About Iran and Shows Why the West is so Weak and in Apparent Decline
By Barry Rubin
Help! Our lives have been turned into a parody, a satire. How else can you explain things like the Los Angeles Times editorial of September 8, entitled, “The U.S. and Iran: It's time to talk.” The editorial isn’t just stupid; it’s full of lessons about how large parts of the Western elite thinks about international affairs nowadays. It’s scarier than a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
After all, this is one of the major newspapers of America, supposedly run by adults, and it serves a major city. How could it be so completely unresponsive to reality, to news and developments, living in a fantasy world? Even the quality of writing is so bad that I checked to make sure this wasn’t a hoax.
Of course, we know this is due to ideology (everyone must want to be friends; nothing is worth struggling for); willful blindness (radical, anti-American Islamists sponsoring terrorism, we don’t see any radical anti-American Islamists sponsoring terrorism!), and a complete lack of comprehension about how other political cultures think and behave.
Yet even granted all that how can supposedly serious people write an opening paragraph like this one:
“A conversation with the Tehran regime is the best option for dealing with our differences. The possibility of failure shouldn't Obama from making the effort.”
Really? Is this true after years of failed talks, after recent rejections of Obama’s efforts by the Iranian regime, after the stolen election and the ferocious repression (unprecedented even in the quarter-century since the Islamist revolution), after the lies and cheating and broken commitments on Tehran’s part?
Someone can only say this if they believe that there is no alternative whatsoever to talks, which would no doubt involve U.S. concessions to prove America’s good intentions. And sure enough:
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy may have said it best some years ago when he declared that the only real alternative to `an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran’ was a concerted diplomatic push by world powers to address that country's nuclear program.”
Does this newspaper have any conception of power politics, of what the word “concerted” means here? Does it have any idea what it will mean for U.S. interests, the Middle East, the lives of millions of people if Iran gets nuclear weapons?
Of course, to avoid the push doing any pushing, at the very last moment the dictatorship in Iran put forward a bit of bait to delay the effort while it moved forward on its nuclear program. Would anyone be enough of a sucker to take the bait? Yep:
”Just in time last week, Iran's chief negotiator announced that he has an `updated nuclear proposal’ and is ready to accept Obama's invitation.”
Just in time. In other words, the newspaper is relieved that Iran saved the West from having to do something. Is there any skepticism, any cynicism, any stick with the carrot? Nope.
Help! Our lives have been turned into a parody, a satire. How else can you explain things like the Los Angeles Times editorial of September 8, entitled, “The U.S. and Iran: It's time to talk.” The editorial isn’t just stupid; it’s full of lessons about how large parts of the Western elite thinks about international affairs nowadays. It’s scarier than a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
After all, this is one of the major newspapers of America, supposedly run by adults, and it serves a major city. How could it be so completely unresponsive to reality, to news and developments, living in a fantasy world? Even the quality of writing is so bad that I checked to make sure this wasn’t a hoax.
Of course, we know this is due to ideology (everyone must want to be friends; nothing is worth struggling for); willful blindness (radical, anti-American Islamists sponsoring terrorism, we don’t see any radical anti-American Islamists sponsoring terrorism!), and a complete lack of comprehension about how other political cultures think and behave.
Yet even granted all that how can supposedly serious people write an opening paragraph like this one:
“A conversation with the Tehran regime is the best option for dealing with our differences. The possibility of failure shouldn't Obama from making the effort.”
Really? Is this true after years of failed talks, after recent rejections of Obama’s efforts by the Iranian regime, after the stolen election and the ferocious repression (unprecedented even in the quarter-century since the Islamist revolution), after the lies and cheating and broken commitments on Tehran’s part?
Someone can only say this if they believe that there is no alternative whatsoever to talks, which would no doubt involve U.S. concessions to prove America’s good intentions. And sure enough:
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy may have said it best some years ago when he declared that the only real alternative to `an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran’ was a concerted diplomatic push by world powers to address that country's nuclear program.”
Does this newspaper have any conception of power politics, of what the word “concerted” means here? Does it have any idea what it will mean for U.S. interests, the Middle East, the lives of millions of people if Iran gets nuclear weapons?
Of course, to avoid the push doing any pushing, at the very last moment the dictatorship in Iran put forward a bit of bait to delay the effort while it moved forward on its nuclear program. Would anyone be enough of a sucker to take the bait? Yep:
”Just in time last week, Iran's chief negotiator announced that he has an `updated nuclear proposal’ and is ready to accept Obama's invitation.”
Just in time. In other words, the newspaper is relieved that Iran saved the West from having to do something. Is there any skepticism, any cynicism, any stick with the carrot? Nope.
Read All at :
RubinReports: The Los Angeles Times Talks About Iran and Shows Why the West is so Weak and in Apparent Decline
RubinReports: Syria’s Policy and Europe’s Pay-Offs Disprove A Cliché: Crime DOES Pay
Syria’s Policy and Europe’s Pay-Offs Disprove A Cliché: Crime DOES Pay
By Barry Rubin
If you are seeking ironies, you need look no further than the Middle East. Consider:
Syria is a country which:
--Is a dictatorship and regularly violates human rights, with peaceful dissidents arrested, thrown into prison, and tortured.
--Provides the headquarters for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah.
--Gives a safe haven and base of operations for terrorists in Iraq who have killed thousands of civilians.
--Is being investigated for its role in a dozen terror attacks in Lebanon, including direct accusations of its ordering the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
--More than any other country in the world, cooperates with al-Qaida and helps it launch operations.
--Was caught two years ago building a secret nuclear plant for making atomic weapons.
BUT, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, whose government will hold the EU presidency come January 1, has just expressed his support for the EU signing a partnership agreement with Syria. European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner has stated that an EU-Syria deal is close.
If you are seeking ironies, you need look no further than the Middle East. Consider:
Syria is a country which:
--Is a dictatorship and regularly violates human rights, with peaceful dissidents arrested, thrown into prison, and tortured.
--Provides the headquarters for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah.
--Gives a safe haven and base of operations for terrorists in Iraq who have killed thousands of civilians.
--Is being investigated for its role in a dozen terror attacks in Lebanon, including direct accusations of its ordering the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
--More than any other country in the world, cooperates with al-Qaida and helps it launch operations.
--Was caught two years ago building a secret nuclear plant for making atomic weapons.
BUT, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, whose government will hold the EU presidency come January 1, has just expressed his support for the EU signing a partnership agreement with Syria. European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner has stated that an EU-Syria deal is close.
Read All at :
RubinReports: Syria’s Policy and Europe’s Pay-Offs Disprove A Cliché: Crime DOES Pay
RubinReports: Dialogue of the Deaf: Obama Sanctions' on Iran Fall Flat on their Face
Dialogue of the Deaf: Obama Sanctions' on Iran Fall Flat on their Face
By Barry Rubin
The big, highly advertised meeting of six great powers—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States--to raise sanctions against Iran seems to have ended without any major breakthrough. According to available sources, China and Russia took such a strong stance against sanctions as to make it clear that unity on this issue--which means effective sanctions--is impossible.
This is a huge failure for a main--perhaps the main--U.S. policy in the Middle East.
It was thus with little credibility that the meeting warned Iran that it must resume talks about its nuclear program by the end of September.
Or else what?
To which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replies:
“We have not heard anyone setting a specific time for talks. Interaction on the basis of respect and justice does not go with setting deadlines. Perhaps some people have made comments but it is obvious that this…is not compatible with today’s needs and Iran nation’s approach.”
Or, in other words, “No.”
So we are set for the next act: more dramatic announcements of relatively small sanctions’ actions followed by months of inaction as Tehran gets around them to some extent.
The Western powers still don’t seem to realize that whatever you can say about the Iranian regime a year or more ago, it is now a super-radical government increasingly in the hands of the most extreme faction. Some countries, including those in the meeting, still view Iran as a great opportunity for good profits.
Here's something you're going to be hearing a lot more in the future, from an article, "Limited options: Deterring North Korea and Iran by Lowell H. Schwartz in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists :
"The question today is no longer whether the U.S. can still prevent the emergence of nuclear-armed regional adversaries, but instead, how to prevent them from being empowered by their nuclear weapons.
"Deterrence of nuclear use through the threat of retaliation--a mainstay of Cold War military strategy--is highly problematic with nuclear-armed regional adversaries. The reason is simple: These leaders may believe their sole chance of surviving is brandishing or using nuclear weapons. Indeed, they might choose to abstain from nuclear use only if they felt that course would enable them and their regimes to survive intact.
"U.S. decision-makers in regional crises should seek to devise policy options that avoid putting the enemy leadership in a position where nuclear use seems to them to be the least bad option available."
The big, highly advertised meeting of six great powers—China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States--to raise sanctions against Iran seems to have ended without any major breakthrough. According to available sources, China and Russia took such a strong stance against sanctions as to make it clear that unity on this issue--which means effective sanctions--is impossible.
This is a huge failure for a main--perhaps the main--U.S. policy in the Middle East.
It was thus with little credibility that the meeting warned Iran that it must resume talks about its nuclear program by the end of September.
Or else what?
To which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad replies:
“We have not heard anyone setting a specific time for talks. Interaction on the basis of respect and justice does not go with setting deadlines. Perhaps some people have made comments but it is obvious that this…is not compatible with today’s needs and Iran nation’s approach.”
Or, in other words, “No.”
So we are set for the next act: more dramatic announcements of relatively small sanctions’ actions followed by months of inaction as Tehran gets around them to some extent.
The Western powers still don’t seem to realize that whatever you can say about the Iranian regime a year or more ago, it is now a super-radical government increasingly in the hands of the most extreme faction. Some countries, including those in the meeting, still view Iran as a great opportunity for good profits.
Here's something you're going to be hearing a lot more in the future, from an article, "Limited options: Deterring North Korea and Iran by Lowell H. Schwartz in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists :
"The question today is no longer whether the U.S. can still prevent the emergence of nuclear-armed regional adversaries, but instead, how to prevent them from being empowered by their nuclear weapons.
"Deterrence of nuclear use through the threat of retaliation--a mainstay of Cold War military strategy--is highly problematic with nuclear-armed regional adversaries. The reason is simple: These leaders may believe their sole chance of surviving is brandishing or using nuclear weapons. Indeed, they might choose to abstain from nuclear use only if they felt that course would enable them and their regimes to survive intact.
"U.S. decision-makers in regional crises should seek to devise policy options that avoid putting the enemy leadership in a position where nuclear use seems to them to be the least bad option available."
Read All at :
RubinReports: Dialogue of the Deaf: Obama Sanctions' on Iran Fall Flat on their Face
RubinReports: Egypt Warns: U.S. Policy Won’t Work
Egypt Warns: U.S. Policy Won’t Work
By Barry Rubin
If as close a U.S. ally as Egypt openly—not just privately but publicly—totally contradicts President Barack Obama, what does it say about U.S. credibility in the Middle East.
First, the background.
Credibility and deterrence are two basic foreign policy concepts missing from discussions among U.S. policymakers nowadays, perhaps replaced by popularity. The fact is that credibility and deterrence are sinking is far more dangerous than that Obama’s personal popularity may have risen.
Here’s a quick test:
You’re an Arab leader. Iran, Syria, and radical Islamist groups menace your country and regime. Do you feel secure in expecting Obama to help and protect you?
If you answered “yes” then obviously you are not an Arab leader.
As you know, Obama has said that he has Arab regimes on board to make gestures toward Israel in exchange for a freeze on construction in existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank. This is nonsense, and when the president of the United States speaks demonstrable nonsense—which everyone in the region knows—this is not a good thing for him being taken seriously.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says that while a complete construction freeze—and whatever the United States and Israel agree on will be deemed insufficient—might make Arab states more inclined toward normalization it won't bring any actual steps in that direction:
"Certain countries will be prepared to move closer to Israel if it takes significant steps for the good of the Palestinians, and will demonstrate seriousness and willingness for serious contacts….[But] A settlement freeze in the West Bank is not of equal value to normalization, and will not bring this about alone."
Well, sure. Thirty years ago Egypt and Israel signed a full peace treaty, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula and even today the two countries don’t really have normal relations.
Yet here are the two big Middle East policy initiatives the president will announce in the coming month:
If as close a U.S. ally as Egypt openly—not just privately but publicly—totally contradicts President Barack Obama, what does it say about U.S. credibility in the Middle East.
First, the background.
Credibility and deterrence are two basic foreign policy concepts missing from discussions among U.S. policymakers nowadays, perhaps replaced by popularity. The fact is that credibility and deterrence are sinking is far more dangerous than that Obama’s personal popularity may have risen.
Here’s a quick test:
You’re an Arab leader. Iran, Syria, and radical Islamist groups menace your country and regime. Do you feel secure in expecting Obama to help and protect you?
If you answered “yes” then obviously you are not an Arab leader.
As you know, Obama has said that he has Arab regimes on board to make gestures toward Israel in exchange for a freeze on construction in existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank. This is nonsense, and when the president of the United States speaks demonstrable nonsense—which everyone in the region knows—this is not a good thing for him being taken seriously.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit says that while a complete construction freeze—and whatever the United States and Israel agree on will be deemed insufficient—might make Arab states more inclined toward normalization it won't bring any actual steps in that direction:
"Certain countries will be prepared to move closer to Israel if it takes significant steps for the good of the Palestinians, and will demonstrate seriousness and willingness for serious contacts….[But] A settlement freeze in the West Bank is not of equal value to normalization, and will not bring this about alone."
Well, sure. Thirty years ago Egypt and Israel signed a full peace treaty, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula and even today the two countries don’t really have normal relations.
Yet here are the two big Middle East policy initiatives the president will announce in the coming month:
Read All at :
RubinReports: Egypt Warns: U.S. Policy Won’t Work
Israel Matzav: US ambassador to IAEA: Iran 'nearing' nuke capability
US ambassador to IAEA: Iran 'nearing' nuke capability
Glyn Davies, Washington's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has expressed concerns that at a minimum, Iran is attempting to preserve a nuclear weapons option. "Taken in connection with Iran's refusal to engage with the IAEA regarding its past nuclear warhead-related work, we have serious concerns that Iran is deliberately attempting, at a minimum, to preserve a nuclear weapons option," Davies said.
The latest agency report reveals that Iran now has, at a minimum, 1,430 kilograms of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride, added the US official.
...
"We, as members of the board, have a responsibility to demand that the (IAEA) secretariat's questions are answered and to ensure that we can obtain confidence in the peaceful intent of the Iranian nuclear program," Davies said. "When a state such as Iran continues to violate its obligations, we must respond."
But Davies also said that the US welcomes constructive, honest engagement with Iran to resolve the issue, and expressed hope that Teheran will take "immediate steps to restore international trust and confidence."
"The pathway to a negotiated solution remains on the table for Iran, and we continue to call on Iran's leaders to demonstrate genuine commitment to peace and security in the Middle East and to the international nonproliferation regime," he said.
Britain, France and Germany joined Washington's call, urging Iran to engage in "meaningful negotiations" aimed at achieving a comprehensive diplomatic solution to the international standoff over its disputed nuclear program.
The three major European powers said it that was "inexcusable" that Iran continues to repudiate any degree of transparency or cooperation in clarifying outstanding issues and that its current attitude further reinforces doubts about its endeavor.
"Iran should make use of the window of opportunity provided now," said the joint statement, delivered by German envoy Reedier Luedeking. "We have extended a hand and we appeal to Iran to take it."
Unfortunately, the time for 'engagement' is long past
Israel Matzav: US ambassador to IAEA: Iran 'nearing' nuke capability
Israel Matzav: Iran using Venezuelan banks to skirt existing sanctions
Iran using Venezuelan banks to skirt existing sanctions
Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau told the Brookings Institution on Tuesday that investigations by his office show that Iran is using Venezuelan banks to circumvent existing sanctions designed to penalize Iran for continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants to build a destabilizing 'nuclear village' in his country. And the Obama administration is not paying attention. "Generally speaking, nobody is focused sufficiently on the threat of the Iran-Venezuela connection," said Morgenthau, whose New York jurisdiction includes the offices of numerous U.S. financial institutions.
Venezuela is not subject to U.S. or international economic sanctions. That means U.S. banks processing wire transfers from Venezuelan banks rely on their Venezuelan counterparts to ensure the exchanges are for legitimate purposes.
"I have little faith that this is being effectively done, and the Iranians, aware of this vulnerability, appear to be taking advantage of it," he said.
In early 2008, Iran opened in Caracas a subsidiary of the Export Development Bank of Iran. Last fall, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed economic sanctions against both banks for providing financial support to the military organizations responsible for Iran's nuclear program.
Still, Morgenthau said he believes Iran's Caracas subsidiary has ties with banks in Venezuela and in Panama, which has a reputation as a center for money laundering.
Morgenthau said Iranian-owned and operated factories have sprung up in remote and undeveloped areas of Venezuela. While there's little known about what's going on inside these plants, "we should be concerned that illegal activity might be taking place," he said.
Morgenthau cited cases his office has recently pursued that underscore the lengths Iran will go to avoid sanctions aimed at curbing its nuclear program.
Well why would anyone be focused on Venezuela's activities when the Obama administration has decided that Hugo Chavez is their friend?
There's a big problem with trying to cozy up to your enemies: There's usually a reason why they were your enemies in the first place. That's certainly true here. What would happen if - let's just say - Iran were to sell a few Shihab missiles to Venezuela and Chavez were to install them pointing north? What could go wrong?
There's a big problem with trying to cozy up to your enemies: There's usually a reason why they were your enemies in the first place. That's certainly true here. What would happen if - let's just say - Iran were to sell a few Shihab missiles to Venezuela and Chavez were to install them pointing north? What could go wrong?
Israel Matzav: Iran using Venezuelan banks to skirt existing sanctions
Israel Matzav: Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?
Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?
In an interview with Al-Jazeera's English-language channel that was aired on Monday, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged US allies in the Arab world to strengthen their military capabilities and defense cooperation with Washington as a means of pressuring Iran to back off its nuclear program. Gates said "one of the pathways to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security, not enhance it.
"So the more that our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it," he said.
I will have video of the interview (which for some reason does not included the quoted statements) further down in this post, but first I want to discuss Gates' call to Arab countries.
Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.
Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.
America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.
That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.
Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.
Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.
America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.
That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?
Israel Matzav: Another nail in the Iranian sanctions coffin
Another nail in the Iranian sanctions coffin
Ten days ago, I reported that Israel's Foreign Ministry had accused the International Atomic Energy Agency of hiding incriminating material that would show that Iran was attempting to develop nuclear weapons. On Monday, France took the Israeli accusations a step further: France went farther, alleging the existence of an unpublished annexe that addresses the evidence that Iran may be building an atom bomb.
Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said that France had attended a technical briefing that covered the material, so was surprised to find it missing from the report.
“In the annexes there are specifically elements which enable us to ask about the reality of an atomic bomb,” he said “There are issues of warheads, of transport.”
...
Western intelligence agencies had given the IAEA material suggesting that Tehran secretly combined uranium processing, airborne high-explosive tests and efforts to revamp a missile cone in a way that would fit a nuclear warhead.
The agency described the material as compelling and insisted that Iran clarify the matter rather than reject it as fabricated evidence. It is likely, however, that it did not meet the standards of proof required for inclusion in the report.
The reason that the French - and the Germans - are suddenly becoming more vocal in their desire to stop Iran may be this report by Uzi Rubin, which I blogged here, which suggests that Iran may be targeting western Europe with its nuclear weapons, and not just Israel.
In the meantime, outgoing IAEA chairman Mohamed ElBaradei admitted on Monday that Iran was still enriching uranium and urged it to ''substantively re-engage'' with the IAEA and to 'respond positively' to a United States initiative for dialogue. As I noted on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there is nothing to discuss.
Meanwhile, Haaretz reported on Tuesday that Russia and China have rejected a proposal by the other members of the '5+1' group (the US, Britain, France and Germany - Germany being the only one of the six that is not a permanent, veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council) to impose harsher sanctions against Iran.
In the meantime, outgoing IAEA chairman Mohamed ElBaradei admitted on Monday that Iran was still enriching uranium and urged it to ''substantively re-engage'' with the IAEA and to 'respond positively' to a United States initiative for dialogue. As I noted on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there is nothing to discuss.
Meanwhile, Haaretz reported on Tuesday that Russia and China have rejected a proposal by the other members of the '5+1' group (the US, Britain, France and Germany - Germany being the only one of the six that is not a permanent, veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council) to impose harsher sanctions against Iran.
The two nations refused to discuss the possibility of further pressuring the Islamic Republic, according to the official, during high-level six power talks held last week in Germany.
Officials in Jerusalem are concerned by the failure of the meeting and the obstacles put up by Russia and China. Nevertheless, they believe the delay in action on Iran stems from the fact that the powers are waiting for Tehran's official response to the West's offer of dialogue, which it will apparently give this week.
The six powers met last Wednesday in the German city of Frankfurt, in a meeting at which all the countries' most senior officials dealing with the Iran nuclear issue were present.
"Nothing was agreed upon," the Israeli official said. "Russia and China avoided a serious discussion, presented an inflexible stance and set things back one year."
Ironically, Russia and China's intransigence makes war more likely, not less. And war makes it less likely, not more likely, that Iran will succeed in developing nuclear weapons.
For reasons I have noted, sanctions against Iran are very unlikely to be effective at this late date, even if an agreement can be reached on imposing them. On the other hand, war could be quite effective in delaying the Iranian program, or in putting a stop to it altogether.
Will the United States try to prevent Israel from stopping Iran? I don't believe President Obama will be given that opportunity.
But what seems clear is that the Russian and Chinese refusal to act is another nail in the coffin of international cooperation to stop Iran in a non-military fashion.
For reasons I have noted, sanctions against Iran are very unlikely to be effective at this late date, even if an agreement can be reached on imposing them. On the other hand, war could be quite effective in delaying the Iranian program, or in putting a stop to it altogether.
Will the United States try to prevent Israel from stopping Iran? I don't believe President Obama will be given that opportunity.
But what seems clear is that the Russian and Chinese refusal to act is another nail in the coffin of international cooperation to stop Iran in a non-military fashion.
Israel Matzav: Another nail in the Iranian sanctions coffin
Israel Matzav: The BBC's shocking view of rabbis
The BBC's shocking view of rabbis
On its Monday night Newsnight show, the BBC presented a shockingly biased view of the role of rabbis in the Israel Defense Forces. Here's part of their write-up: Israel's army is changing. Once proudly secular, its combat units are now filling with those who believe Israel's wars are "God's wars".
Military rabbis are becoming more powerful. Trained in warfare as well as religion, new army regulations mean they are now part of a military elite.
They graduate from officer's school and operate closely with military commanders. One of their main duties is to boost soldiers' morale and drive, even on the front line.
This has caused quite some controversy in Israel. Should military motivation come from men of God, or from a belief in the state of Israel and keeping it safe?
The military rabbis rose to prominence during Israel's invasion of Gaza earlier this year.
Some of their activities raised troubling questions about political-religious influence in the military.
Gal Einav, a non-religious soldier, said there was wall-to-wall religious rhetoric in the base, the barracks and on the battlefield.
As soon as soldiers signed for their rifles, he said, they were given a book of psalms.
And, as his company headed into Gaza, he told me, they were flanked by a civilian rabbi on one side and a military rabbi on the other.
"It felt like a religious war, like a crusade. It disturbed me. Religion and the army should be completely separate," he said.
'Sons of light'
But military rabbis, like Lieutenant Shmuel Kaufman, welcome the changes.
In previous wars rabbis had to stay far from the front, he says. In Gaza, they were ordered to accompany the fighters.
"Our job was to boost the fighting spirit of the soldiers. The eternal Jewish spirit from Bible times to the coming of the Messiah."
Some of you may recall that just after the war, Haaretz complained about religious materials being distributed to soldiers. The materials in question were biblical and ancient rabbinic quotes about the law of war and how to deal with an enemy. At the time, I noted that 40% of the casualties in Operation Cast Lead were religious soldiers, and told you that reflected the percentage of combat soldiers in the IDF who are religious, and therefore, the fact that rabbis are being granted a larger role in inspiring troops is not surprising.
I want to show you a brief clip from the BBC report (I may get more of it later; it cannot be viewed from outside the UK, but my friend Ray in the UK got this for me and may be able to get more), and then we'll talk some more after the video.
I want to show you a brief clip from the BBC report (I may get more of it later; it cannot be viewed from outside the UK, but my friend Ray in the UK got this for me and may be able to get more), and then we'll talk some more after the video.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: The BBC's shocking view of rabbis
Israel Matzav: Human Rights Watch's can of worms
Human Rights Watch's can of worms
In Wednesday morning's Maariv, Ben Dror Yemini, who, as you may recall, broke the Joe Stork story, attacks the 'can of worms' (link in Hebrew) that Tuesday's Marc Garlasco stories exposed about Human Rights Watch. The original Google translation is here - because I translate professionally, I have done a little editing to clean it up.Israel Matzav: Human Rights Watch's can of wormsHuman Rights Watch's can of worms discovered
The most important international protector of human rights is being revealed as a dangerous body. The organization is hiding militarists on the right alongside radicals on the left.
If it were one case, one could argue it was a coincidence. Even two are not proof. But the more about that is disclosed about Human Rights Watch (HRW), the most important international body to protect human rights, the more that it seems that something really stinks there. No, that's not a delicate word, and certainly not diplomatic one. But it is doubtful that there is a better word to describe the can of worms that is gradually being dug up there.
The head of the Middle East and Africa Division - the division responsible for all of the impressive publications against Israel - is Sarah Leah Whitson, who served on the Advisory Board to the Arab American Committee before she came to HRW, and is also a supporter of the [Arab] boycott against Israel. Her assistant is Joe Stork, who was exposed in Maariv as a radical anti-Zionist activist, who opposed any recognition of Israel, and who was a member of an advocacy group that published a notice of support, or at least understanding, for the massacre of [Israeli] athletes in Munich [the 1972 massacre at the Munich Olympics. CiJ].
The NGO MONITOR organization, headed by Professor Gerald Steinberg, has just published a detailed report on HRW that also exposes the systematic bias, the deception, and other figures in the organization, like Lucy Meyer, Reed Brody, Darryl Lee and Nadia Barhoum, whose common feature is radical anti-Israel activism.Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Fatah refuses to teach the Holocaust
Fatah refuses to teach the Holocaust
What's the difference between Fatah and Hamas? When it comes to teaching the Holocaust, there is no difference at all.You may recall that Hamas was justifiably lambasted in the media last week for refusing an UNRWA offer to teach the Holocaust to children in Gaza schools. At the time, I questioned why anyone thought Fatah was any better than Hamas, noting that Fatah is headed by a Holocaust denier, presenting a video of Holocaust denial by Fatah officials on Fatah television, and questioning why Israel and the West 'negotiate' with Fatah if Holocaust denial is justification not to do so.
On Tuesday, Palestinian Media Watch issued a report that confirmed everything I wrote last week.
But Holocaust denial and distortion are already common components of Palestinian ideology. In the newest Palestinian schoolbooks produced by the Palestinian Ministry of Education, there is no mention of the Holocaust or of racial discrimination against Jews, although the subject of the Second World War is treated in detail.
For PMW's report on the lack of Holocaust education in PA schoolbooks, click here.
For PMW's latest report on Palestinian schoolbooks, click here.
As well, Fatah political and religious leaders have either denied or minimized the Holocaust on official Fatah-controlled television and in official PA daily newspapers. And PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas wrote his doctoral thesis on "the secret relationship between Nazism and Zionism."
To see excerpts from Abbas's thesis, click here and here.
Read and watch the whole thing.
Since the post I did last week was in response to a post on Lefty blog Think Progress by Matthew Yglesias, maybe some of you could send this to him and he can explain to us why the Left thinks Fatah is a 'negotiating partner.'
Since the post I did last week was in response to a post on Lefty blog Think Progress by Matthew Yglesias, maybe some of you could send this to him and he can explain to us why the Left thinks Fatah is a 'negotiating partner.'
Israel Matzav: Fatah refuses to teach the Holocaust
Israel Matzav: Your tax dollars and al-Qaeda
Your tax dollars and al-Qaeda
As you might recall, there was a clash in August between Hamas and the al-Qaeda-linked Jund Ansar Allah in which thirty 'Palestinians' were killed executed, gangland style. On Tuesday, YNet reported on a series of explosions last week that targeted Hamas security forces buildings in the Gaza Strip. The explosions were allegedly carried out by the al-Qaeda-linked Jund Ansar Allah (Hat Tip: Jawa Report). But this is where things just start to get curious:
Read All at :
Love of the Land: Illegal Arab Land Grab
1751 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10128
Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717
E-mail afsi@rcn.com Website; http://www.afsi.org/
Contact: Helen Freedman, Executive Director
September 8, 2009
To: Minister of Defense,
Mr. Ehud Barak
Re: Shdema
Dear Mr. Barak
I’m writing to you in the name of the thousands of members of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI) in the United States who are concerned about the illegal Arab land grab taking place everywhere in Israel, and in particular in the abandoned army base of Shdema.
I was recently in Israel, viewed the situation in Shdema firsthand, and took part in one of the weekly cultural events put on by The Committee for a Jewish Shdema. I have followed the Committee’s evolution from a small group of activists, to an established organization with ambitious plans for the area and strong support by the public, local authorities, and governmental figures and MPs.
I believe the Committee’s goals of keeping Shdema in Jewish hands is an imperative for both practical and principled reasons. As a practical matter, Shdema overlooks the highway connecting Jerusalem with Eastern Gush Etzion and southwards. Controlling Shdema is therefore vital to the safety and security of Israel’s Jewish citizens that reside and travel in those areas. As a matter of principle, for Israel to abandon sovereignty over its territory de facto and out of inaction will lead to chaos, violence, and a tsunami of Arab lawlessness, as we are already seeing everywhere in Israel, in the Galilee and the Negev as well as Gush Etzion.
The illegal Arab building in Shdema is a striking example of brazenness that was actually funded by the American (USAID) and European governments. AFSI has every intention of raising a furor over U.S. governmental funds going to fund illegal, politically motivated construction in the Israeli territory of Area C. The Internet sites of some of the international organizations active in Shdema are full of hatred for Israel and lies and incitement against her.
The Arabs have plenty of land under their own jurisdiction on which to build whatever they’d like. We at AFSI hope that as defense minister you will defend Israel’s vital interests and ensure that Shdema remains Jewish.
Sincerely,
Helen Freedman
Executive Director, AFSI
Love of the Land: Illegal Arab Land Grab
Love of the Land: Great Moments In Appeasement: Arms For Hostages
Great Moments In Appeasement: Arms For Hostages
08 September 09
A few weeks ago I watched the Israeli film Beaufort, which portrayed the experiences of a handful of Israeli soldiers occupying Beaufort Castle during the last days of the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. I found it quite interesting, because my son served in the IDF in Lebanon at the same time, and later described to me his feeling — shared by many of his comrades — that abandoning the ground to Hezbollah was a mistake.
Which it turned out to be.
Anyway, a horrific moment in the film was when a missile — an American-made TOW missile [Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided] — struck an observation post at Beaufort, killing its occupant.
The missile slammed into the outpost at about 620 mph, instantly turning it into an inferno. I wondered: where did Hezbollah get US-made weapons? I asked my son.
“Don’t you remember,” he asked? “You gave them to Iran during the ’80’s.”
Actually yes, I do: the so-called ‘Iran-contra affair’, in which the US transferred weapons to Iran by way of Israel in return for the freedom of various hostages that Iranian-controlled Hezbollah terrorists had taken in Lebanon during the decade. Iran also paid in money, which was used to fund anti-Sandinista guerrillas (”contras”) in Nicaragua.
About 2000 TOW missiles were sent to Iran (among other items) as part of the deal.
Basically, what happened was this:
- Hezbollah killed hundreds of Americans (241 in the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing) and took numerous hostages, many of whom were Americans.
- The US sold a large quantity of weapons to Iran in violation of an arms embargo — the Iran-Iraq war was in progress — so that Iran would use its influence with Hezbollah to get hostages returned. Israel cooperated.
- Iran transferred the weapons to Hezbollah, which used them to kill Israelis.
- Hezbollah continued killing Americans (as well as Argentine Jews, Israelis, etc.) and taking hostages.
A few hostages were released, others died in captivity, some by torture (also here). It’s not clear if the arms transfer materially aided the release of hostages (indeed, it can be argued that hostages taken after the program was under way were kidnapped in order to keep it going).
In 1985 a group associated with Hezbollah claimed credit for the crash of a plane carrying about 250 US service personnel in Gander, Newfoundland. Although five members of a nine-member commission of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board ruled the crash an accident, the minority report persuasively argued that the cause was a detonation in the cargo area.
Appeasement: when will we learn?
Love of the Land: Myths?
Myths?
Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
09 September 09
J Street has apparently gotten so much flack about its perpetual criticism of Israel and cheerleading for every Palestinian propaganda point that the J Street team has been forced to come up with a “Myths and Facts About J Street” crib sheet. Let me just say that if a Jewish organization has to put out a statement denying that it is anti-Israel, pro–Mary Robinson, is funded mostly by Arabs, and has defended a nuclear-armed Iran, then they might as well pack it in. Suffice it to say, you don’t see the ADL or AIPAC or any other genuinely pro-Israel group in such a defensive crouch.
Moreover, some of its “defenses” are rather, well, pathetic. Let’s take just two. On Mary Robinson, J Street says it never defended the choice of Mary Robinson for the Medal of Freedom Award. The “defense”? They were mute! Only their friends defended her. No, really:
J Street never issued a single statement related to Mary Robinson. Individuals associated with J Street’s public relations firm may have done some personal work on the issue — but that had nothing to do with J Street, just as the firm’s work for dozens of other clients is completely unrelated to J Street.
Wow, that sure settles that.
Then there is Iran. J Street denies it has defended Iran’s nuclear program. Well, they haven’t defended it. They just don’t think we should, you know, do anything about it:
As of the early fall of 2009, we are not of the opinion that the time has come for Congress to move ahead with further sanctions. We agree with those who are calling for ’strategic patience’ at this moment of unrest and uncertainty in Iranian domestic politics and continue to urge Congress to give the diplomatic and political processes currently underway more time to unfold.
I think the mullahs are the one’s calling for more and more and more time to “unfold.”
And so it goes: J Street doesn’t support U.S. negotiation with Hamas; it just thinks Hamas is too important to ignore:
Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require Palestinian political reconciliation and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation and a unity government, whose officials will work within a diplomatic process to achieve an acceptable two-state solution. Further, we would not oppose a decision by the Israeli government, the United States, or other countries to find unofficial, indirect ways to engage Hamas in order to advance U.S. and Israeli interests.
Sort of easy to see how these “myths” take hold. It seems that crack team at J Street’s PR firm that defended Mary Robinson isn’t very good at its job. But then it has an impossible task—trying to convince the Jewish community that they really, deep down, support a strong and secure Jewish state.
Related: J Street Acquisitions And Mergers
Love of the Land: Myths?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
