Rick's Café American: 15 Sept 2009

Tuesday 15 September 2009

Love of the Land: What's Missing from NY Times Article on J Street

What's Missing from NY Times Article on J Street

Snapshots/CAMERA

14 September 09

James Traub's fawning "news analysis" (read promotional plug) on J Street in the New York Times Magazine notes that the organization is "named after the street missing from Washington's grid and thus evoking a voice missing from Washington's policy discussions." Traub's admiring article is itself guilty of missing critical information about the upstart lobby group.

Repeating without challenge J Street's assertion that polling data (polls, polls, always polls with J Street) indicates that Jewish Americans largely support its agenda, Traub writes:

J Street maintains that most American Jews share its views on the Middle East. . . . The question is how much of an exception they make for Israel. J Street sought to answer this question by commissioning an extensive poll of Jewish opinion on MIddle East issues. The survey, taken in July 2008 and repeated with almost identical findings in March, found that Americans Jews opposed further Israeli settlements (60 percent to 40 percent), that they overwhelmingly supported the proposition that the U.S. should be actively engaged in the peace process even if that entailed "publicly stating its disagreeements with both the Israelis and the Arabs" and that they strongly supported doing so even when the premise was revised to "publicly stating its disagreements with Israel."

One wonders if the New York Times Magazine writer bothered to actually look at the poll in question before he breathlessly recounted J Street's wishful thinking that the results indicate that the American Jewish public is behind them. Shmuel Rosner, a veteran reporter on American-Israeli affairs, wrote about that very same March poll:

1. J Street's press release reads the following: "Instead of holding the hawkish, hard-line positions often expressed by many established Jewish organizations and leaders, American Jews actually overwhelmingly support assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role in helping Israelis and Arabs to resolve their conflict? American elected officials and politicians have for years fundamentally misread the American Jewish community," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director in the press release.
But here's what the poll says: More people agree that "established" and "traditional" Jewish organizations represent their views than the number of people who say such organizations do not represent them. Even when AIPAC - supposedly the great Satan - is mentioned by name, more people (34 percent) believe it accurately represents their views than those (23 percent) who don't. The 40 percent who do not have an opinion also represent a group that can hardly be considered "fundamentally misread."
2. J Street opposes military action against Iran, "a terrible option for the U.S., regional stability, and for Israel." But American Jews will be more likely than not to vote for a Congressional candidate who believes that "America must do everything it can to protect Israel's security. This means militarily attacking Iran if they pursue a nuclear weapons program, supporting an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran, cutting off aid to the Palestinians if their schools allow textbooks that don't recognize Israel, and letting the Palestinians know where we stand on Jerusalem by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." . . .
3. My friends at the Orthodox Union (I have friends all around town) were quick to note, that J Street's PR for their poll conveniently omits mention of its findings on an issue we feel is of the utmost importance - the indivisibility of Jerusalem. Even among their respondents - who support 'assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role' (i.e. pressure) and withdrawal from the West Bank - a majority do NOT believe Jerusalem should be re-divided with its eastern neighborhoods becoming part of a Palestinian state."

And here are our own observations about the gaps between J Street's poll results and the organization's positions:

-- J Street called for lifting the blockade of the Gaza Strip, while 75 percent of its poll respondents "support Israel's blockade of Gaza if the Palestinians block the agreement from being reached."

-- During Cast Lead, J Street maintained that "there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them," but its poll found that 69 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement "With hundreds of Palestinian civilian deaths and a humanitarian crisis resulting from a month of no electricity and clean water throughout Gaza, Israel's response to Hamas' attacks was disproportionate." Hardly a ringing endorsement of J Street's views.

Thus, for all the mighty efforts of the pollster who carried out this poll, Jim Gerstein, a former J Street VP (can you say conflict of interest?), J Street was still able not to get the results it had wanted. But the lobby group was able to convince the New York Times otherwise.

Love of the Land: What's Missing from NY Times Article on J Street

Love of the Land: U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
cnsnews.com
14 September 09

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Justice Richard Goldstone, head of the HRC’s Gaza fact-finding mission. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)(CNSNews.com) – The United States on Monday took its seat on the U.N.’s three year-old Human Rights Council for the first time, for a session that once again promises controversy over the council’s single most focused-upon topic – Israel.

The three-week long, 12th regular session of the 47-nation council will include consideration of and debate over a report compiled by investigators into allegations of war crimes during Israel’s military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip last winter.

The inquiry was mandated by a “special session” of the HRC last January, which passed a resolution condemning Israel for “massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people.”

The resolution did not directly mention Hamas or its attacks against Israeli civilians – the stated reason given by Jerusalem for mounting what it called Operation Cast Lead last December. (Of 17 operative paragraphs, one paragraph urged “all parties … to refrain from violence against the civilian population.”)

The investigation’s mandate is simply to probe violations by Israel against the Palestinians.

The resolution passed by a 33-1 vote, with Canada alone in rejecting it. Thirteen members – Japan, South Korea, Cameroon and ten European countries – abstained.

In April, the council announced that the investigation would be chaired by Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge and former U.N. war crimes prosecutor, and include three other experts.

Making the announcement, HRC president Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria said he was confident it would operate “in an independent and impartial manner.”

Groups supportive of Israel quickly raised doubts, however, pointing to what they viewed as an unbalanced mandate that prejudged the inquiry.

Goldstone has stressed his intention to investigate allegations of war crimes and violations on all sides, but the Israeli government rejected the inquiry and its mandate and refused to cooperate.

‘Total integrity’

Another concern raised was the fact that one of the inquiry’s members, Prof. Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, had signed a letter last January rejecting Israel’s assertion that its operation constituted self-defense against Hamas rocket attacks.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice is congratulated after the U.S. won a seat on the Human Rights Council for the first time, in New York on May 12, 2009. (U.N. Photo by Eskinder Debebe)

The letter, signed by 27 academics and lawyers and published in a London newspaper, condemned Hamas’ attacks against Israelis, but concluded that “the manner and scale of [Israel’s] operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.”

During a dialogue with non-governmental organizations in Geneva last May, Chinkin was challenged on her support for the letter by one of the participating NGOs, U.N. Watch, and responded that she had signed it long before she was asked to take part in a fact-finding mission.

“I, along with all others member of the mission, intend fully to act with total integrity, and look at the facts of what had occurred on the basis of the evidence, on the basis of the evaluation, on the basis of all materials that we can cover,” she said.

The controversy continued, however, with U.N. Watch – a Geneva-based monitoring group – formally seeking Chinkin’s disqualification from the inquiry, charging that she had publicly taken a stand on the disputed issues the investigation was meant to be examining impartially.

The fact-finding mission rejected the appeal, saying the investigation was not a judicial proceeding.

(Full Article)

Related: The Goldstone Show-Trial

Love of the Land: U.S. Takes Its Seat at U.N. Rights Council, With Fresh Controversy Brewing Over Israel

Love of the Land: Gaza Police Fatalities: By the Numbers

Gaza Police Fatalities: By the Numbers

Backspin/Honest Reporting

14 September 09

Should Palestinian policemen killed during Operation Cast Lead be defined as civilian casualties or combatants? The JCPA researched Gaza's cops.

343 Overall Palestinian security forces killed during the Gaza war.

286 Palestinian security forces killed during the war who were identified as terror organization members.

27 Palestinian security forces killed during the war who were undergoing infantry training.

89 Overall Palestinians killed in a December 27, 2008 air strike on an officer training course at the Gaza police HQ.

60 Palestinian policemen killed in the above attack who were members also members of Hamas.

0 Palestinians killed or wounded in incidents of "friendly fire" during the Gaza war, according to Palestinian claims.

See also Elder of Ziyon's research and The New Republic, which interviewed Palestinian and Israeli researchers on the wide divergence of civilian casualties.

Love of the Land: Gaza Police Fatalities: By the Numbers

Love of the Land: When Right Seems Wrong...but is Really Right

When Right Seems Wrong...but is Really Right

Paula R. Stern
A Soldier's Mother
14 September 09

I called Elie today. I've been missing him a lot, which is, of course, silly since I just saw him last weekend. Life is particularly pressured right now and it seems to have manifested itself in a number of ways, including this feeling of being out of touch. So, I called with a ready excuse about the cellular phone company service. Elie asked me if I was near a computer and when I told him I would be in 5 minutes, we agreed that I would call him back after I got home.

He guided me to a website - "Go to YNET," he said, explaining that I needed to go to the Hebrew news site and not the English one. "click News."

He guided me to a news article and asked me to capture the video. It took me a while to understand the story and what the video was showing. The story goes like this - at least the published one:

An Arab truck driver pulls up to a checkpoint at 6:30 a.m. with proper paperwork. His truck is filled with rocks designated for building. The soldiers inspect the truck and ask the truck driver to dump his load so they can check under the rocks. The truck driver complies. The truck is emptied. The soldiers don't find anything and allow the truck driver to continue. However, in order to continue, he must now hire a tractor to pick up the rocks and put them back into his truck. This is at his expense and his lost time.

"How can we live this way? What kind of life is this?" another Arab tells the camera.

I watched it a few times and then called Elie back. What am I missing, I thought to myself. This doesn't make "us" look good.

"Where you there?" I asked Elie. I had looked each of the soldiers carefully, but I didn't see Elie. Then again, some were turned away and from the distance, it is hard to tell.

"No," Elie told me. "But they're my soldiers. I can tell who they are, and even who isn't in the camera but was there."

"Elie, what's the story here? It doesn't look good."

That's when Elie explained. The driver isn't so innocent. He's known to the soldiers. The fact that THIS TIME his truck wasn't carrying anything that he wasn't allowed to transport, doesn't mean he wasn't caught in the past. More important that the story, for the soldiers in Elie's unit, were the comments. Almost 70 of them, "and Ima, all of them are good. They all understand."

Yes, they are supporting the soldiers and that is what made Elie happy.

Don't surrender to them. Much honor to the army.
And what would you say if between the stones, you found explosives?
it's difficult to stand at a checkpoint and spend hours guarding for eight hours and have people come and question all that you do. As one of those who examine the merchandise and goods that are brought across checkpoints, I try also to do the best I can for each side. It isn't easy to sleep at night knowing that you could end up passing through explosives or the next suicide bomber. So to all those who have a complaint against the army or the soldiers, keep it to yourself. (Signed a Soldier on a Checkpoint).
Nothing wrong with what was done. If they let them pass without being checked, then I would say that there is a problem. Kol Hakavod (all honor) to the soldiers for doing a great job, protecting all the people who sit in Tel Aviv and always complain.
It is obviously a security issue. A full truck comes to a checkpoint. How is a soldier supposed to know that there are no explosives inside? It's obvious the rocks aren't the issue. It's something I learned as a soldier. If we don't check, the Arabs learn and bring in explosives. It doesn't matter that in this truck, there was nothing. Now they see us checking and won't bring in explosives that harm our civilians. Kol Hakavod to the soldiers.

And on it went, comment after comment, in Hebrew and in English. What the soldiers did was correct. This time, the truck didn't have explosives; this time, nothing was hidden under the rocks. On the same day this happened, several knives and firebombs were found at other checkpoints. Perhaps this wouldn't have made the news if something had been found. Yes, the driver was inconvenienced; yes, it is a sign of the situation in which we find ourselves.

And as the many commentators wrote...and as our soldiers read - all honor to our soldiers. So many times our soldiers feel that the world doesn't understand their work. This time, they understood, they read. The article wasn't very positive, trying, as YNET often does, to paint our soldiers in a bad way and yet the readers proved to the soldiers that what they did was correct.

THIS time, the truck had nothing on it so the driver will go on his way. But just as important, many other drivers who might have thought to smuggle something through that checkpoint will understand that the soldiers are checking. A friend, who daughter was killed several years ago in the Sbarro pizza bombing attack once yelled at a reporter who was concerned about the conditions under which the Palestinians live and the damaged "quality of life" they may experience because of the security situation.

"Don't you dare talk to me about the quality of their life," the bereaved father answered, "when my daughter has no life."

Sometimes, what seems wrong, is really right and what is right, seems wrong. I am often told that peace will come to the Middle East when the Israelis do certain things. Stop the occupation, they say, and there will be peace. But there was no peace in 1966, before the so-called occupation began. All the return of the refugees, people say - but we too had hundreds of thousands of refugees and we took them in, gave them homes and a land and a part of our future.

There are so many issues in the Middle East that can be summed up very simply, though the world likes to make it complicated.

On Friday, Israel launched artillery into Lebanon...yes, it's true. But the artillery was in response to two katyusha rockets fired at Israel. The katyushas were fired at our cities; the artillery was fired at the launching ground of the katyushas. Had there been no rockets launched at Israel; there would have been no artillery being fired. The UN promptly stepped in and, once again, made fools of themselves by asking for a cessation of violence.

Idiots, I want to tell them. Don't you see? Stop the rockets, and there will be no violence, no artillery. Stop the smuggling and attempts to blow up our civilians, and there will be no need to search your trucks.

Sometimes, when right seems wrong, it is because you aren't looking at the whole picture.

Love of the Land: When Right Seems Wrong...but is Really Right

Love of the Land: For NYT Contributors, Facts Unimportant, As Are to Editors

For NYT Contributors, Facts Unimportant, As Are to Editors

Jonathan Boyko
Tactical Middle East
10 September 09

THE MOST RECENT New York Times opinion article is written by Zahi Khouri, the “chief executive of the Palestinian National Beverage Co.” – a businessman, who once left Manhattan to open his own business in Palestine. And his operation prospered – that is, until the evil Israelis suddenly, without any reason at all, imposed tough economic sanctions and movement restrictions on Palestinian people. Just like that – no reason at all.

Mr. Khouri is quite good at playing the numbers card, quoting World Bank and International Monetary Fund figures. For example:

Yet the International Monetary Fund’s projected growth of 7 percent in the West Bank for 2009 is largely the result of Palestinian reforms undertaken in spite of the obstacles Israel continues to place in the way of Palestinian development.
…
According to a June 2009 World Bank report, real G.D.P. in the occupied Palestinian territory has declined by a “cumulative 34 percent in real per capita terms” since September 2000.

Khouri understands that the economic growth is not God-sent and could be reversed, by saying that “7 percent growth is no sure thing”. He, however, knows exactly whom to blame:

Netanyahu’s economic and political dictums determine whether we grow or contract. He wields this immense power over us, although Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza had no role in his election.
…
Israeli spreading settlements, checkpoints and roadblocks that fragment the occupied Palestinian territory; Israel’s illegal Wall and its permit system that severely restrict where Palestinians can live and work; and Israel’s continuing siege of Gaza all not only threaten our nascent economic recovery, but threaten the very possibility of a two-state solution
…
President Obama recognizes this. President Mahmoud Abbas recognizes this. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu somehow thinks he can charm Palestinians, who are daily reminded of the occupation under which they suffer, with a 7-percent growth bubble.

You guessed it right – it’s the Israelis fault. If there is one thing missing from Khouri’s piece it’s Palestinian “activism” in form of murder of over a thousand Israelis, wounding or injuring another several thousands. Khouri would not direct blame on his fellow Palestinians in Islamic Jihad or Tanzim or HAMAS for opening armed battles with Israeli forces, sending dozens suicide bombers into Jewish neighborhoods and cities. It is okay to murder these babies – they are Jewish.

Read All at :

Love of the Land: For NYT Contributors, Facts Unimportant, As Are to Editors

Love of the Land: Synchronicity, Tehran-style

Synchronicity, Tehran-style

J. E. Dyer
Contentions/Commentary
13 September 09

Two factors in the timing of Iran’s new offer of negotiations have been largely ignored in the U.S. media. These factors have substantial explanatory value. One is an Iranian-sponsored initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations to obtain a new UN ban on military strikes against nuclear facilities. The other is the ongoing internal dissent in Iran, which is expected to crescendo on Friday, September 19, with a mass demonstration by reform supporters.

Iran has been working the NAM proposal for some time now, and with official support from more than 100 NAM members, it intends to submit it to the IAEA, as the UN’s cognizant body, when the IAEA’s membership convenes for a general conference on September 14. (The NAM letter of support submitted to the IAEA is here.) Tehran’s official protestations aside, the proposal is an obvious bid to trigger a UN showdown—pitting NAM nations against the U.S., UK, and France on the Security Council—over any strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel or the United States. The offer of negotiations from Iran is timed to present the appearance of a cooperative attitude as IAEA takes up the strike-ban initiative.

Meanwhile, Iran’s reformers continue to protest the June election and the regime’s handling of its aftermath, from Basiji brutality to the show trials and torture decried by dissenters and Western pundits. Michael Ledeen reports that all references to opposition leaders Mousavi and Karoubi were banned in the Iranian press as of September 12, a Soviet-style measure that seems thus far to be performing contrary to the spirit of its intention, if not the letter. Scheduled on September 19, “Qods (Jerusalem) Day” is a “monster demonstration” against the regime by reform supporters, which observers expect to represent a decisive, showdown-level event.

September is thus a big month for Tehran’s mullahs. The regime would like to retrieve the political initiative, internally as well as abroad, with a string of diplomatic successes: blunting the West’s strategic focus on Iran’s nuclear program with a new round of negotiations; getting IAEA to endorse the strike-ban proposal; and showcasing Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN General Assembly this month with, as Emanuele points out, an impression of Iranian initiative and global leadership. The timing of Tehran’s offer of negotiations is neither random nor, as Jennifer drily observes, a response to toughness from the Obama administration. It is part of a comprehensive strategy.

The objective of the strategy remains the same: developing nuclear weapons with which to wield deterrent power and hold Israel and other American allies at risk in the Middle East. Iran wants to negotiate today because that is the best means of forestalling action (including tougher sanctions) against its nuclear program, an interim goal that all Iran’s policies are oriented to. We can assume Netanyahu and Russia’s leadership had their discussion last Monday with full understanding of that reality. We may wonder, however, if that understanding extends to Obama, his advisers, and the U.S. State Department

Love of the Land: Synchronicity, Tehran-style

Love of the Land: Protecting the Quarterback in the White House

Protecting the Quarterback in the White House

Lenny Ben-David
JPost Opinion
13 September 09

J Street seems to pop up in all the right places lately, buoyed and immunized by indulgent, adoring and uncritical journalists. The upstart lobby was invited to join other Jewish organizations in a July meeting with US President Barack Obama; a month later it attended a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Yesterday's New York Times magazine published the latest paean to J Street, portraying it as brash and brave, representative of 92 percent of American Jewry, and a young and open organization willing to take on a monolithic and paleolithic AIPAC and other veteran American Jewish organizations.

Frankly, the Times article is missing so many components and questions about the "pro-Israel" organization that it cannot be viewed as anything other than J Street puffery.

For instance, the writer, James Traub, devotes considerable effort to show how J Street is in touch with American Jewish opinion on issues such as Israeli settlements and American engagement in the peace process. J Street commissioned "an extensive poll of Jewish opinion on Middle East issues," Traub wrote.

But Traub failed to report the recent and shocking exposé, written in Commentary by Noah Pollak, that J Street's poll was conducted by J Street's own former vice president, Jim Gerstein. "J Street not only commissions polls," Pollak wrote, "it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce 'polling data' that almost perfectly complements the group's political agenda, now we have one important clue."

(Challenged on this and other issues, J Street felt compelled last week to post a "Myths and Facts about J Street" on its Web site. As a founder of the original Myths & Facts, a Factbook on the Arab-Israeli Conflict, published by AIPAC's Near East Report, I am reminded how some critics referred to it as "Myths & More Myths," a title much more appropriate to J Street's new attempt at defending itself.)

THE TIMES'S Traub failed to report on the identity of J Street's broader leadership and decision-makers. To whom does director Jeremy Ben-Ami answer or consult? Who sits on the organization's board of directors? Who are the organization's funders? Traub reports on the 50-member finance committee, the existence of which was revealed in a Jerusalem Post article last month. The Post revealed names of some of the members: "The finance committee with a $10,000 contribution threshold," the Post wrote, "includes Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute (AAI), and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) board."

J Street's Web site presents its distinguished 170-member "advisory council," a display case of wealthy progressive Jews and former US diplomats to the Middle East, including several who became foreign agents working the halls of Washington for Arab countries. Perhaps J Street's ultimate leaders are among these advisers, but there's no way of knowing who they are.

The Post article revealed that J Street's PAC was the recipient of donations from Arab-, Islamic- and Iranian-Americans, but Traub doesn't mention that controversial fact. The existence of these donations is understandably played down by Ben-Ami, but that information certainly should have been made available to the Times's readers.

J Street's finance committee list only reflects contributors to the PAC as they appear in public records of the Federal Elections Commission. The list of donors to J Street's main organization is secret.

Read All at :

Love of the Land: Protecting the Quarterback in the White House

Love of the Land: Angels

Angels

I've used these two angel characters for years and years. They, like me, have been watching the search for "Peace" for years and years.

This reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who dropped his house keys on his doorstep, but then looked for them under a nearby street light "because there was more light there."

...we're watching yet another President searching for Middle East peace through concessions from the tiny Jewish State (as easy as looking under a street light) instead of where it might actually be found ...by getting the locals to accept the existence of the Jewish State (as difficult as searching in the dark).

Love of the Land: Angels

Israel Matzav: Al-Jazeera hits the Gaza sewers, digs

Israel Matzav: Video: Assaf Ramon gets his wings

Israel Matzav: Bin Laden recommends Walt and Mearsheimer

Israel Matzav: Video: Satirizing the Swedes

Israel Matzav: The delusional Saudis

The delusional Saudis

Over the weekend, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal published an op-ed in the New York Times. The op-ed is laced with inaccuracies. It insists that Israel must give the Arabs all of the land it liberated in the defensive 1967 war and then the Saudis will deign to consider normalization of some sort.

It must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality.

Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Israel occupied those territories as well as East Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution stating that, in order to form “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” Israel must withdraw from these newly occupied lands. The Fourth Geneva Convention similarly notes “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

No, that's not what the United Nations said and it's not the correct interpretation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Before turning to the specific issue of the settlements, it is instructive to recall that Israel's entry into the West Bank, in particular, created a number of legal dilemmas that would ultimately impinge on how the legal question of settlements was examined. Israel entered the West Bank in a war of self-defense, so that the UN Security Council did not call on Israel to withdraw from all the territory that it captured, when it adopted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in November 1967. The previous occupant in the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 had been the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, whose sovereignty in the territory the entire international community refused to recognize - except for Britain and Pakistan. Prior to 1949, the governing document for legal rights in the West Bank was the 1922 Palestine Mandate, which gave international recognition to Jewish legal rights.

U.S. officials were cognizant of these considerations. Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School who was also Undersecretary of State in the Johnson years, would write years later that "Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank." He argued that Israel's claims to the territory were "at least as good as those of Jordan." Prof. Stephen Schwebel, who would become the State Department legal advisor and subsequently the President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, went a step further when he wrote in 1970 that "Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt." On July 29, 1977, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance stated that "it is an open question as to who has legal right to the West Bank."

Faisal goes on:

Now, Israeli leaders hint that they are willing to return portions of these occupied territories to Arab control, but only if they are granted military and economic concessions first. For the Arabs to accept such a proposal would only encourage similar outrages in the future by rewarding military conquest.

Talk about turning the table upside down....

Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine’s attitude toward a two-state solution, without considering the illegalities of Israel’s own occupation. Israel has never presented any comprehensive formulation of a peace plan. Saudi Arabia, to the contrary, has done so twice: the Fahd peace plan of 1982 and the Abdullah peace initiative of 2002. Both were endorsed by the Arab world, and both were ignored by Israel.

The Hamas charter, which calls for Israel's destruction, remains a legally enforceable document. So does the Fatah charter, which also calls for Israel's destruction. Israel cannot propose any 'peace plan' because anything less than a total surrender would just be pocketed by the Arabs and become the platform for the next negotiations. As for the Saudi 'proposals,' anything that calls for the 'return' of all the 'Palestinian refugees' to Israel is a non-starter.

The rest of the op-ed probably sets a world record for pomposity. But given that the President of the United States bows to their king, that's not surprising.

Israel Matzav: The delusional Saudis

Israel Matzav: Iran is wasting the West's time

Iran is wasting the West's time

On Friday, the Obama administration agreed to meet with Iran for 'unconditional talks' even though the Iranians insisted that their nuclear development program would not be part of the 'conversation.' Israel's former military intelligence Aharon (Zeevi) Farkash says that Iran is wasting the West's time.

Iran continues to play its game of deception. The former chief of Military Intelligence, Major General (res.) Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, told Haaretz the Iranians are behaving this way because "they're at such an advanced stage in their plans, all they need to do is to waste time while pushing hard for their immediate goal, which is to produce sufficient quantities of fissile material for two or three atomic bombs."

In Israel, there are suspicions that the pace of Iranian advance has accelerated, and that Tehran "will continue walking on the edge of the cliff" in its exchanges with the international community.

Apparently, this explains the declaration of Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that dialogue with the international community might include discussion of the nuclear program "if the conditions are right."

This statement diverges slightly from the document Iran offered as its official response to the international community, and also from the comments of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claimed last Monday that his country will not cease to enrich uranium and will not negotiate on its "nuclear rights."

The results of the dialogue are expected to become clear by December. The commonly accepted assessment here holds that little can be achieved and therefore sanctions against Iran will be forthcoming. But the likelihood of tough sanctions is doubtful, as backing from Russia and China will be limited. Even if the U.S. manages to harness broad support for sanctions, with the backing of the United Nations Security Council, these will almost certainly be insufficiently potent.

I would call it 'stalling for time' rather than 'wasting the West's time.' While Obama is busy 'talking' to the Iranians, the Iranians will be busy spinning the centrifuges to break out a nuclear weapon. By the time December rolls around, it will be too late for sanctions even if the Russians and the Chinese agree to them.

In the meantime, while the 'talking' is going on, the Obama administration will do all it can to prevent Israel from striking Iran, and if war breaks out between Israel and Iran, Israel will be blamed and labeled the aggressor.

Meanwhile, in an interview with Reuters, Israel's Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor warned that now is the time to act against Iran. Unfortunately, much of the rest of his interview is wishful thinking in which he says that he 'can't say' that 'engagement' with Iran is a waste of time, and he speaks of 'common international action,' while avoiding the problem of Russia and China not cooperating.

It's too late for sanctions, even if they could be agreed upon. One can only hope that Meridor is a decoy and he doesn't believe the naive views he expressed in his interview with Reuters. But even if Meridor is naive, I doubt Netanyahu is.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Iran is wasting the West's time

Israel Matzav: The point of no return?

Israel Matzav: More from the Garlasco collection

Israel Matzav: Bin Laden's new message mostly about Israel

Israel Matzav: How the mainstream media helps the terrorists

Israel Matzav: Obama bows, Abdullah boycotts: Arab boycott up 76%

Israel Matzav: What motivates J Street? Part 2

Israel Matzav: What motivates J Street? Part 1

Germans Near War

Since I'm having fun at the expense of the Germans today (see previous post), here's an article from the Economist about Germans and Afghanistan.

The Germans carefully inserted themselves in Afghanistan in a way that would make them feel good about their contribution to the defense of the West and be helpful to their American allies, while at the same time being in no danger whatsoever. Alas, the Taliban aren't playing according to the rules and when a German commander recenly felt himself threatened he called in the American airforce. Lots of people got killed, not all of them combatants, according to the partially sanitized report in the Economist.

The initial official German response was dishonest, and at home there's a growing constituency for getting out.

Two important differences between Israelis and other Westerners is that we've got to be more careful in the way we wage our wars, and we can't get out.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Does our Language Form Us?

Claudio Casula of Spirit of Entebbe has a magnificent post here. Unfortunately you need to read German to understand it - but since some readers of Ruminations have that handicap, I'm warmly recommending.

What Claudio has done is to take all the vacuous, mindless clischees in which contemporary German political discourse takes place, and pasted them next to pictures of Palestinians from earlier this decade. Each picture has a statement next to it; each statement comes from a universe no Palestinian would recognize, or vice versa. Thus, for example, under the second picture, which shows six Palestinian KKK types with suicide vests, his caption is
"Ashraf (31, middle of photo): Environmental and integration policies interest me the most. I'm delighted to take in new ideas".

Near the bottom he has a photo of rifle-brandishing demonstrators, with the caption
"Jihad (34): I'm always for constructive talks, in the internal Palestinian realm and with the Zionists. As long as you talk no-one shoots. It's that simple".

Besides being very funny, there's also a serious subtext. We think in the vocabulary we use. When our vocabulary has been sanitized so as not to contain negative thoughts, we'll see the world without its negative aspects. Actually, we won't see the world at all, merely a phantasy we've constructed for ourselves, but if everyone around us does the same, then the outsiders who insist on seeing things differently will eventually begin to seem sinister in their insistence on having bad thoughts.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

More on Assimilation

Norm Geras runs a bit with a ball I had last week, and now I'm running with it a bit further. The topic is Jewish assimilation of the type where people cease to identify as Jews or lack the identification from birth (probably the larger number). As disagreements go, Norm and I aren't really bickering here, we mostly agree, but perhaps our differences can illuminate the issue a bit.

Norm makes four points. First, that if you're liberal or pluralist (European terminology) you've got to respect the decisions of the individual even if you'd have prefered them to decide differently. He's right. When individual Jews decide to leave the fold, that's their right which we must respect (tho he leaves open the possibility for personal anguish, and he's right about that, too).

Second, it's equally right for Jews to make efforts that as few leave the fold as possible, so long as the efforts are legal. So, education or social encouragement are alright but coercion would be wrong. On this, also, we agree.

Third, that the presistence of antisemitism is an important reason to persist in being Jewish and encouraging others to do so. While I don't disagree, I'm less bothered. In spite of my daily reading of the Guardian, antisemitism isn't really an important part of my everyday life, and it's low on my list of reasons to persist in being Jewish. The way I see it, being Jewish is an effort and always has been, and poking the antisemites in the eye, while pleasurable, doesn't justify the effort. There are better, more proacative reasons.

(For those of you who have encouraged me to write that book about the antisemites, as I sometimes say I ought, thanks for the encouragement. Yet even if I ever do so it won't be as an expression of my Jewishness, rather as part of Israel's war against its enemies - related, but not the same).

Finally, Norm tells that as he sees it, the Jews aren't about to disappear, and worrying about it isn't a priority. I agree that the entire group called the Jews aren't about to disappear, but I can see with my own eyes that large numbers of them are. My great grandparents left Russia as Jews at the start of the 20th century - so we sidestepped the Shoah. A century later, most of their youngest descendants are no longer Jews, and the trend will continue except in Israel. There's nothing particularly unusual in my family.

Since being Jewish is extremely important to me, this saddens me.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

DoubleTapper: Army & Police Exhibition in Tel-Aviv Israel October 12th - 14th

The Torah Revolution: Missing the point, not Oslo

RubinReports: New York Times: No Islamist "Terror," No Arab "Terror," just "Jewish Terror"

New York Times: No Islamist "Terror," No Arab "Terror," just "Jewish Terror"

Many newspapers and wire services, thinking that terrorism is just a state of mind, have style policies not to use that word. Some only use that word if their own country is attacked; others never use it.

And so, it is quite revealing that when, for the first time in a long time, the New York Times uses the word, it fits with the broader theme and even ideology that seems to govern the paper nowadays.

In an article on Jewish settlers on the West Bank--you can imagine every word of the article before reading it--we find the following:

"Jewish terror is not new. A religious student assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, and a settler, Baruch Goldstein...."

Now of course these were acts of terrorism. But so have been the thousands of acts of terrorism perpetrated by Fatah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel as well as against Western and Third World countries over the years.

I'll bet that this was not a deliberate and conscious action from the top to say that the only terrorists are Jews. The writer and editors just didnt' think about it. But that's the point, isn't it? It reveals a huge amount of who the newspaper defines as good and bad guys, plus the fact that it and some others do far too much of that to remmedia coverage of Middle East ain credible and observe what used to be considered professional standards.

RubinReports: New York Times: No Islamist "Terror," No Arab "Terror," just "Jewish Terror"

RubinReports: A New Arab Strategy: Israel Gives Up Everything, and Then Maybe Gets Something in Exchange

A New Arab Strategy: Israel Gives Up Everything, and Then Maybe Gets Something in Exchange

By Barry Rubin

There’s been an important new development in Arab strategy toward Israel. Although it was implicit in the Saudi, later Arab, peace proposal it has now become explicit, as in the Turki al-Faisal New York Times op-ed.

He wrote:

"Saudi Arabia ... must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality."

This is an open and direct rejection of the Obama Administration policy of seeking confidence-building measures from both sides. Of course, the Administration won't criticize the Saudis for trampling on their policy and will go on insisting that they have received positive responses from Arab states which show that progress is being made.

Yet even more important, the Arab states' position--in part excluding Egypt and Jordan--on the peace process is now this:

First, Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in the 1967 war, meaning east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. In addition, it must allow all Palestinians who lived or had any ancestor who lived in what is now Israel come and live in Israel without restriction if they want to do so.

Then, Arab states will negotiate about making peace and giving diplomatic recognition. The Palestinian Authority's leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and Syria have taken stances along similar lines.

Read All at :

RubinReports: A New Arab Strategy: Israel Gives Up Everything, and Then Maybe Gets Something in Exchange

RubinReports: An Introductory Guide To A Very Big Mistake: Analyzing the U.S. Decision to Negotiate with Iran’s Regime

An Introductory Guide To A Very Big Mistake: Analyzing the U.S. Decision to Negotiate with Iran’s Regime

By Barry Rubin

Forgive me for a bit of repetition but what has just happened is so important that it deserves the closest attention and clearest analysis. A more comprehensive explanation is here. This article presents these themes in a brief, straightforward manner.

1. President Barack Obama produced the theme of U.S. engagement with Iran and proposed a world free of all nuclear weapons as a goal.

2. The United States had tried to engage with Iran but that country refused. Nominally this can be attributed to being busy with stealing an election and repressing the opposition but it would have happened any way.

3. Iran is now governed by its most radical government since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini twenty years ago. Extremist and adventurist, anti-American and antisemitic, this is a government bent on getting nuclear weapons (at least as leverage, not necessarily to use), destroying U.S. influence in the region, and wiping Israel off the map.

4. Seeing that engagement wasn’t working, the U.S. government made a plan to bring together key countries and raise the level of sanctions in late September, just two weeks from the time the Iranian letter was received. The key G20 meeting was set for September 24-25.

5. Seeking to stall such measures in order to consolidate the regime, which is relatively weak given domestic opposition, the Tehran regime at the last minute sent an insulting note to the United States trying to change the subject. Rather than focus on the nuclear weapons’ drive, they called for changing the UN to empower non-Western states (an old regime theme) and rid the world of all nuclear weapons. In other words: Iran will be the champion of the Third World in getting rid of great power vetoes at the UN and keep on developing nuclear weapons until the United States gets rid of all those it has.

Remarkably, Obama accepted the Iranian offer.

7. Since the U.S. proposal was for unconditional negotiations this means that it cannot ask Iran to do anything—reduce sponsorship of terrorism, decrease internal repression, slow its nuclear program—as long as the talks are going on.

8. Apparently, the United States is not going to pursue the plan for increasing sanctions while the talks go on.

9. The U.S. government is also not setting a deadline for progress. Talks are scheduled to begin October 1.

10. This means: By sending a five-page insulting letter the Iranian government has derailed the sanctions’ project and will gain in prestige without any cost.

11. In addition, the Iranian regime suffers no cost for stealing the election, repressing the opposition, and appointing a wanted terrorist as defense minister. One might expect international outrage and isolation of Iran on those points alone. Here, too, the regime has won a total victory.

12. The cover story is: The U.S. government offered to engage so it must keep its word. Supposedly, various factors will be impressed by this effort and be more willing to support sanctions after talks fail.

13. Yet it is never explained who these parties are? France, Germany, Britain, and other European states are ready to support sanctions increases now. Russia and China oppose raising sanctions now and will continue to do so. Even American domestic opinion doesn’t need this: if Obama, who is wildly popular on the left and seems to own much of the media, wants to raise sanctions what significant forces would oppose it?

14. In short, engagement has no positive function in terms of gathering support for sanctions.

Even the New York Times questions this decision, albeit only indirectly:

"Unfortunately, there is no sign that Iran is serious about doing much more than buying more time....In the seven years since its covert nuclear fuel program was revealed, Iran has managed to split the world powers and deflect any real punishment by promising to talk. It continues to defy a United Nations Security Council order to stop producing nuclear fuel and has largely shrugged off three sets of watered-down sanctions that either failed to target Iran’s economic vulnerabilities or were listlessly enforced — especially by Russia and China."

15. What is really going on?

Read All at :

RubinReports: An Introductory Guide To A Very Big Mistake: Analyzing the U.S. Decision to Negotiate with Iran’s Regime