Saturday 20 March 2010

Israel Matzav: Clinton: Escalating with Israel is 'paying off'

Clinton: Escalating with Israel is 'paying off'

Hillary Clinton told the BBC's Kim Ghattas on Friday that escalating pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was 'paying off.'

Ghattas: You took a risk in escalating the tone with Israel last week, I understand the relationship is solid but the Israelis could have said we never promised restraint on settlments in east Jerusalem,- is the risk paying off?

Clinton: I think we're going to see the resumption of the negotiation track and that means that it is paying off because that's our goal. Let's get the parties into a discussion, let's [get] the principle issues on the table and let's begin to explore ways that we can resolve the differences.

Ghattas: Is the pressure on the Israeli prime minister meant to be a moment of clarity, either he delivers on his commitment to peace, or his right wing coalition falls?

Clinton: We're not taking any position and we have no particular stake in who the Israelis choose to govern them.They're a democracy and they make that choice. I think that different parts of govern make action or statements that are not in the best interest of the government as a whole and I think what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly is that his government and he personally are committed to pursuing these negotiations and he just has to make sure that he brings in everyone else, that's his responsibility it's not something that the United states can or is interested in doing.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, Bibi should have said "we never promised to freeze building in Jerusalem." In fact, Bibi was quite explicit that we were going to continue to build in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, I think Bibi is getting the better of this round. In all the reports of what he's agreed to give, nothing is explicit. It seems that he has given nothing on Ramat Shlomo and in fact, he may be legally unable to give anything because Israeli law may not allow him to stop building in Jerusalem. I may change my mind if I see a large terrorist release or some critical roadblocks opened, but so far, I really haven't seen anything that Bibi's given to resolve this manufactured 'crisis.'

Please tell me I'm not missing something.

Israel Matzav: Clinton: Escalating with Israel is 'paying off'

Love of the Land: The Chicken Licken syndrome

The Chicken Licken syndrome

It’s now up to Netanyahu to decide whether he’ll revive yesteryear’s resolve about Jerusalem or.


Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
19 March '10

Hillary is hopping mad about Israeli “insults” (no less). Barack Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden (some of whose best friends are Zionists), has warned us (at Tel Aviv University) that “the status quo is not sustainable.”

Obviously doubting our abilities to comprehend so weighty a message, he slowly and deliberately reiterated the portentous mantra with extra emphasis on the really important syllables, so that even dim-witted vassals can get the point and get scared.

Our left-leaning media did all they could to amplify the implicit intimidations. Opinion-molders prone to running with the pack and going with the flow were duly aghast with angst.

But upon cooler reflection, those of us with more than two weeks’ worth of historic memory might recollect that this is hardly the first time we received the harshest of warnings that time isn’t in our favor – heaven forefend – and that if we don’t rush to slash our own throats, our enemies might shortly decapitate us. Do we really want to lose our heads?

IN SEPTEMBER 2000, Hillary’s significant other, Bill, when he was still president, delivered the same warning in the same omniscient tone of we-know-better-than-you-what’s-best-for-you. It was at the Millennium Summit. “Like all chances, this one too is fleeting and there’s not a moment to lose,” Slick Willy wagged his disapproving finger. If we don’t do pronto as he wishes, he admonished, disaster would strike and the sky would come crashing down upon our thick skulls. He only tried to save us from ourselves. Just like Biden. For our own good.

Amazingly the sky is still hanging up there, as it did eons ago, contrary to the dark predictions that it wouldn’t.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: The Chicken Licken syndrome

A Soldier's Mother: I'm Protecting Israel

A Soldier's Mother: I'm Protecting Israel

Israel Matzav: Foreign Policy 101

Foreign Policy 101

Can you pass Foreign Policy 101? The clown can't:

Here’s a thought experiment, a kind of one-question foreign-policy exam: Assume you’re a superpower worried about not being seen as forceful in dealing with Lebanon, Syria, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil. Which of the following strategies might change that impression?

(a) Become more forceful in dealing with Lebanon, Syria, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil; or

(b) Land hard on Israel — to show Lebanon, Syria, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil how forceful you can be.

Obama chose “b.”


Israel Matzav: Foreign Policy 101

Israel Matzav: 'Obama is rip s**t with Israel'

'Obama is rip s**t with Israel'

Marty Peretz of the left-leaning New Republic had some blunt news for Israel on Friday. After reviewing the attacks on Israel by Vice President Biden, by Secretary of State Clinton and by David Axelrod, Peretz comes up with this:

Still, Axelrod, a strange guy to go out and comment on Obama’s foreign policy, was not just speaking for himself. Like Hillary Clinton, this kind of talk was a decision of the president himself. No one on the White House staff denies this. You don’t have to ask about it. Almost everyone who’s anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or in Foggy Bottom will volunteer the news: Obama is “rip shit” with the Israelis. So how long has he been rip shit? I believe that he has been sitting in waiting for the opportunity to have others send the message: “The president has blown his top.” When talks fail, which they inevitably will, he will present his own plan. Beware.

Obama had gone out on a limb about Israel-Palestine. It was based on very faulty history or, rather, on a canny distortion of history. The fact is that neither George Mitchell nor Hillary Clinton nor the president himself has wrangled a single concession from the Palestinian Authority, not one. In fact, the whole structure of the talks is built on yet another concession from Israel. The press is so unknowing that it simply didn’t realize or didn’t care about the nature of the concession. But, to anyone who knows and cares about history, the arrangement is nothing less than spooky.

The idea of proximity talks goes back very deep into the past. It was actually transcended in the negotiations between Yasir Arafat and the strained Israeli duo of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Since then, in fact, face-to-face consultations had become more or less routine. Sometimes they were desultory; other times they were not. On occasion, they were very productive, as with the agreement to field a U.S. training mission for Palestinian police with deep cooperation from Israel.

So, proximity talks are a big retreat from reality--not a surprise, but a big retreat nonetheless--when the Palestinians want only to talk with the Americans. And then, the Americans will talk to the Israelis, and back and forth through the American mediator, presumably a tired Mitchell who hasn’t had a fresh idea in years. Now he has allowed the Palestinians to push him back to the idea of indirect negotiations, and, apparently, Obama also does not object--or maybe it was his own fix-it device. This is an old nightmare in the Jewish memory bank. Already, at Versailles, there was no contact between the Zionists and the Arabs and no contact at later conferences at which the question of Palestine was discussed.

Read the whole thing. You have to wonder why our historian/Ambassador to the United States wasn't able to talk Netanyahu out of these talks (I'm sure he tried).


Israel Matzav: 'Obama is rip s**t with Israel'

Love of the Land: Continually Condemning

Continually Condemning


Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
19 March '10

Even when trying to repair the gash in the fabric of U.S. relations, administration figures can’t keep their “condemn”s to themselves. In Moscow (more about that), Hillary Clinton employed the now familiar Obami tactic — praise generically and skewer specifically our ally Israel. One the one hand, she proclaims Bibi’s effort to soothe Hillary’s affronted and insulted boss “useful and productive.” But then she’s at it again. She pronounces, in case anyone had missed it, that “we all condemned the announcement, and we all are expecting both parties to move toward the proximity talks and to help create an atmosphere in which those talks can be constructive.” Meanwhile we learn:

Friday’s meeting came amid new fears about the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East. On Thursday night, Israel carried out air strikes on six sites in the Gaza Strip in what it said was retaliation for a rocket attack from Gaza on a southern Israeli town that killed a Thai worker. [Did anyone condemn the murder of the Thai worker?]

The prospects for reviving the peace process were already murky. The Palestinian Authority insists it will not negotiate until Israel freezes construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Israel’s housing plan, Mrs. Clinton said, further soured the atmosphere.


You see, it’s Israel’s fault. On the verge of peace talks — indirect ones, because the Palestinians can’t even get in the room with the Israelis, of course — when along comes the “affront.” It works like this: the Obami provide the pretext; the Palestinians bring the intransigence. You can imagine the dialogue between the West Wing and Foggy Bottom: What to use? The Ramat Shlmo housing announcement! Nah — absurd! No, no — that’ll work! No provocation of violence, no murder by Israel’s foes warrants such a retort. (Funny how the White House never got back to me on my follow-up inquiry.) Israel is in a class by itself.

And the Quartet gets into the “condemn” act. (”Israel’s housing plan was condemned for the second time in a week by the Quartet, a group that focuses on Middle East peace and comprises the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.”)

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Continually Condemning

Love of the Land: Mid-East Quartet raises the pressure against Israel as US policy confusion deepens over settlements

Mid-East Quartet raises the pressure against Israel as US policy confusion deepens over settlements


Robin Shepherd
Robinshepherdonline.com
19 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

While Russia continues with the de-facto annexation of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian provinces of its southern neighbour Georgia, Ban Ki-Moon, Hilary Clinton and the other members of the Mid-East Quartet met in Moscow this morning to reaffirm the international community’s refusal to recognise the annexation of east Jerusalem by Israel. I believe the word is “chutzpah”, though I could think of a few others — unprintable, unfortunately — that might be even more appropriate in the circumstances.

Clinton repeated America’s condemnation of the recent settlement announcement in east Jerusalem and sat impassively as Ban spoke on behalf of the US and the rest of the Quartet saying: “The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, dismantle outposts erected since March 2001 and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in east Jerusalem.” I’m confused.

Does this mean that the United States has gone back to the line that even natural growth — building bathrooms, adding an extension etc — in settlements is unacceptable? Close observers will remember that that is the line the Obama administration started to push last year but then backtracked when the absurdity of that position became clearer and when Israel (rightly) said it had no intention of complying.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Mid-East Quartet raises the pressure against Israel as US policy confusion deepens over settlements

Love of the Land: Biden's Sulk

Biden's Sulk


Benny Avni
Hudson New York
19 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

By the time Vice President Biden got to profess his love for Israel at Tel Aviv University Thursday, the bear hug he came to deliver was replaced by bear claws, and his mission - to declare “no space” between Israel and America when it comes to Iran’s nukes - was all but forgotten.

There is no question that the announcement of a plan to build 1600 new housing units in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, released by Israel just as Biden landed on Monday, was ill-timed and altogether boneheaded. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he claims, was blindsided by his interior minister Eli Yishai’s decision, he should have done more to censor his cabinet member.

Since then, however, Netanyahu endlessly apologized to Biden, assuring his guest that no one meant any disrespect to him or to President Obama (even though, unlike most Israelis, they consider Ramat Shlomo an “occupied territory.”) But before finally saying Thursday that he “appreciates” Netanyahu’s overtures, Biden publicly sulked for too long. He demonstrably arrived late to a Tuesday dinner hosted by Netanyahu, and expressed “condemnation” of the Jerusalem plan - the harshest of diplomatic phrases. Headlines across the world described an “Israeli slap in the face” of America. C’mon, get over it. Diplomatic snafus - and consequent attempts to walk them back - are not all that rare, and they are not unique to Israel either.

Last Friday, the UN Security Council issued a statement that urged Israelis and Arabs to avoid provocations at holy religious sites. It was triggered by Palestinian rioting over an Israeli plan to renovate West Bank biblical tombs, holy to both Jews and Muslims. The Arab-initiated Security Council action marked a departure from a long-held American policy to prevent the UN's top body from acting on any Arab-Israeli issue. The reason for that policy quickly became obvious: Palestinian officials used the council statement to further raise religious tensions across the region, declaring Israel’s “desecration” of Islam’s holy sites a violation of international law.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Biden's Sulk

Love of the Land: Why glorify the murderers?

Why glorify the murderers?


By Ron Kehrmann, Yossi Mendelevich and Yossi Zur
Los Angeles Times
17 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

Vice President Joe Biden took umbrage last week when Israel announced during his visit that it had approved new housing construction in East Jerusalem. But another contentious incident that took place during Biden's visit got far less scrutiny.

March 11 marked the 32nd anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history, and this year the Palestinian Authority decided to honor the 19-year-old leader of the attack, Dalal Mughrabi, by naming a square in a town outside Ramallah after her. The commemoration was scheduled for the anniversary.

The official ceremony was ultimately canceled to avoid antagonizing Biden during his visit, but the square was nevertheless named for Mughrabi, and several dozen Palestinian students from President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement gathered in her honor for an unofficial dedication.

So what was the deed that deserved this commemoration? On a Saturday in March 1978, the squad of Palestinian terrorists led by Mughrabi entered Israel by boat from Lebanon and made their way to the main road between Haifa and Tel Aviv. By day's end, they had murdered 38 innocent men, women and children.

The first person Mughrabi and her gang of terrorists encountered was Gale Rubin, an American photojournalist taking photos of birds near the beach. They killed her and continued on their deadly path.

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Why glorify the murderers?

Love of the Land: Middle East Scorecard

Middle East Scorecard

An Interview with Lee Smith


Matthew RJ Brodsky
inFocus
Spring '10
Posted before Shabbat

On February 28, inFOCUS Editor Matthew RJ Brodsky interviewed Lee Smith, author of the new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. Smith writes a weekly column called "Agents of Influence" for Tablet Magazine, and is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. He has worked at a number of journals, magazines, and publishers, including GQ Magazine, the Hudson Review, and Talk Magazine. He was also editor-in-chief of the Voice Literary Supplement, the Village Voice's national monthly literary magazine. Smith has been a frequent guest on radio and television, including Fox News and National Public Radio, and has contributed articles on Arab and Islamic affairs to, among other publications, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the New Republic, and the Boston Globe.

iF: What inspired the title of your new book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations ?

LS: The title comes from Osama Bin Laden's observation, "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."

iF: What is your book's central thesis and why did you decide to write it?

LS: I was raised in New York City and wanted to understand and explain why almost 3,000 of my neighbors were killed on 9/11. So I sought to explain the centrality of violence in Middle Eastern politics and society to an American audience that is freakishly lucky insofar as we are able, unlike the majority of human beings throughout history, to conduct our political lives free of bloodshed, repression and coercion. Because we have inherited this system we tend to assume that most of the world's other political cultures are similar to ours. Some are but many more are not; the political culture of the Arabic-speaking Middle East is one that has no mechanism for sharing power, or transmitting political authority from one governing body to another except through inheritance, coup or conquest.

iF: A cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy has been engagement based on the idea of "resetting" our relations with certain countries. Does such a metaphorical reset button exist and how does it work in the Middle East?

LS: Such a button could only exist, even metaphorically, if American interests and policies were subject to change every time a new president came to office. Since they are not, all the "reset" button did was to inadvertently make explicit what everyone already knows about the United States: new administrations typically ignore the lessons of their predecessors and have to make their own mistakes before they are capable of dealing with the reality that is, rather than the reality they promised on the campaign trail.

Let's hope the administration has learned from its errors over the past year. Among others, they should have discovered that: 1) despite the counsel of academic experts and media pundits, there is a point past which you cannot "strong-arm" an Israeli government; 2) the Saudis do not offer confidence-building gestures toward Jerusalem and it is unwise to push them on this in public; 3) the Iranians do not wish to have normal bilateral relations with Washington, a preference they have made clear to five different U.S. administrations over the last 30 years.

(Read full interview)

Love of the Land: Middle East Scorecard

Love of the Land: Little tommy's big plans

Little tommy's big plans


Soccer Dad
17 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

Thomas Friedman in 1996

Arafat, belatedly, came to understand that Israel could never keep up the momentum of peace without Palestinians making a 100 percent effort to guarantee Israeli security, and Mr. Peres came to understand that Mr. Arafat could never guarantee security unless the peace process continued its momentum. Because they agreed on the big issues, and had forged a strategic partnership, the little issues never led to massive blowups. The violence that did occur was the Israeli and Palestinian extremes against the Israeli and Palestinian mainstreams.


Thomas Friedman today:

Fayyad is the most interesting new force on the Arab political stage. A former World Bank economist, he is pursuing the exact opposite strategy from Yasir Arafat. Arafat espoused a blend of violence and politics; his plan was to first gain international recognition for a Palestinian state and then build its institutions. Fayyad calls for the opposite -- for a nonviolent struggle, for building noncorrupt transparent institutions and effective police and paramilitary units, which even the Israeli Army says are doing a good job; and then, once they are all up and running, declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank by 2011.


Is Friedman implicitly acknowledging that Arafat never truly gave up terror? All the years when he berated Israel, he never truly acknowledged that Arafat hadn't changed. Now is he acknowledging the truth only to foist another mirage on us.

Fayyad sounds great. Really. Here's more:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Little tommy's big plans

Israel Matzav: DeVore, Fiorina blast Obama on Israel

DeVore, Fiorina blast Obama on Israel

California Republican Senate candidates Chuck DeVore and Carly Fiorina have both come out strongly against President Obama's treatment of Israel. This is DeVore:

"Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East -- and indeed, one of our few true friends in the world. It deserves better than the attacks it has suffered from the Obama Administration of late. More important, America deserves better. We expect our President to have a clear-eyed understanding of America's interests. Instead, Barack Obama's policy on Israel is apparently driven by petty vindictiveness, coupled with a shocking naivete, married to an unforgivable ignorance of the Middle East.

"For the Administration to 'condemn' -- the strongest possible diplomatic language -- the construction of some apartments in a historically Jewish section of Jerusalem does nothing to advance the cause of peace, and still less the security of our country. Peace is advanced through strength, not weakness -- and through unity, not division. At a stroke, President Obama has diminished both.

"Instead, the President and the Secretary of State have only emboldened Israel and America's enemies. Have no doubt that Iran, Syria, and Islamist radicals around the world are watching America turn on its longtime ally. And they approve. Have no further doubt that our allies from Britain to Korea to Afghanistan are seeing the disregard our President has for faithful friendship to the United States -- and drawing the appropriate conclusions.

"The plain fact is that neither America nor Israel have ever benefitted from capitulation to pressure from their enemies -- and make no mistake, our enemies are the same. The American people understand this: that's why they overwhelmingly support our enduring friendship with Israel.

"Americans stand by Israel because our most sacred principles compel us. This Administration does not appear to share those principles. While Vice President Biden was chastising Israel over apartment construction, the Palestinian Authority was naming a public square after a suicide bomber who slaughtered 37 innocents. Americans instinctually grasp the difference between civilization and barbarism, and they know that a public honor for a mass murderer is perilously close to the latter. It's inexcusable that Barack Obama's Administration doesn't have the same moral sense.

Fiorina's statement is a YouTube video. It's right from the top. Let's go to the videotape (it's actually a radio interview).



Fiorina gets into the Tom Campbell and Sami al-Arian thing around the 7:00 minute mark (just before it) and she blasts him again for it.

Still waiting to hear from Barbara Boxer (the Democratic incumbent) and Tom Campbell (the other Republican candidate) on this one.


Israel Matzav: DeVore, Fiorina blast Obama on Israel

RubinReports: CAIR Attacks Book Series on Islam; Unable to Find Anything "Wrong" It Fabricates Complaints

CAIR Attacks Book Series on Islam; Unable to Find Anything "Wrong" It Fabricates Complaints

Please be subscriber 9,594
And please remember this is made possible by your tax-free contributions. Please contact us to discuss making a donation.

By Barry Rubin

I’ve heard a lot about the methods of CAIR, and of course we are all familiar with the incredible intimidation (combined with clever strategy) used against anyone who writes about Islam in any way other than simpering reverence. But experiencing it is another matter, showing the intense dishonesty with which such campaigns are conducted. On the positive side, though, there may be some signs that media gullibility on this matter may be declining.

Offered an opportunity to write and edit some books for the Mason Crest series on Islam, I welcomed the challenge of producing materials that combined proper scholarship, due respect, and honest inquiry on the subject, the same approach taken to any other subject. What we wanted to do was in sharp contrast to the fawning narratives that do things like—an actual case—omit any mention of Muslim-ruled states involvement in the African slave trade while praising them for introducing the clock into the area. Equally, though, we were careful not to put in anything unfairly derogatory about Islam as a religion or about its adherents.

The goal was to create balanced books that were easily accessible to American students.

The results were quite pleasing. Ten books were produced totaling 640 pages and with lavish illustrations, well-received and ordered by many schools.

Then CAIR sought to attack this book series. CAIR seems to be, according to legal documents and documented reports, a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood and a group many of whose officials have been prosecuted and convicted for involvement with terrorist groups. CAIR, then, is not a defense organization for Muslims but an advocacy organization for revolutionary Islamist groups.

That’s important to note because its real agenda is to prevent any critique of Islamism, the ideology of those trying to overthrow every regime in the Arabic-speaking world and many more as well.

CAIR’s approach makes clear its lack of understanding the fact that there exists a set of professional scholarly ethics and principles. And that those who have been trained in this system make a really sincere effort to be fair, accurate, and make arguments based on facts that can be documented. If errors are shown, they are fixed.

The idea that not everyone is a propagandist without a conscience is beyond the grasp of all too many people nowadays.

Once it decided to attack the publications, CAIR had to find something wrong with them. It claimed the books promote anti-Islamic sentiment among U.S. school children and encourage them to believe Muslims are terrorists who seek to undermine U.S. society.

And how proud I am to announce that they couldn’t find anything that was really defamatory or inaccurate. That’s a really good achievement for the authors and editors!

Of course, they didn’t give up. So they came up with a tiny number of points from 640 pages of text. And guess what? They are all based on demonstrable lies. CAIR couldn’t come up with a single factual error or derogatory phrase.

In other words, they had to distort even these few cases. Here they are:

1. In my book, “History of Islam,” CAIR quoted a passage as follows:

"Today, the great majority of Muslims accept the idea that jihad means a struggle against non-Muslims to increase the area under the rule of Islam."

Note that it doesn’t say that they are favorable to such a step--though polls indicate a lot of them are--or are trying to implement it but that they understand this is what it means. Of course, the “struggle for self-perfection” idea is also there but does not negate the point made above.

Still, CAIR was only able even to claim this was somehow objectionable by omitting the following sentences:

"But they had for many years treated it as an archaic concept, something not suitable for the modern world. In contrast, Islamists seek to use jihad to mobilize revolutionary forces for violent struggle."

The idea that Islamists are trying to use a violent jihad to overthrow governments and launch attacks is hardly controversial, is it?

2. On a page in one of the books, a picture of two Muslim girls is on the same page as a subhead that refers to security threats. CAIR claims that the book is thus asserting that little girls are security threats.

Anyone who looks at the page will see that the photo is part of the previous section and the text makes it clear that these points are in no way being connected. Only someone consciously distorting the material could possibly make such a ludicrous claim.

3. One book contains the passage: "For the first time, Muslims began immigrating to the U.S. in order to transform American society, sometimes through the use of terrorism."

By the way, this is the only “critical” section in five pages about the history of Muslim immigration to the United States.

But what is really fascinating here is that they altered the quotation. In other words, I can show that they lied, which should be enough—and would have been during past periods—to discredit whatever they said immediately. Here is the actual passage in question:

"For the first time [in the 1980s], some Muslims began immigrating to the United States in order to transform American society, sometimes through the use of terrorism. At the same time, some Muslims in the United States also began to support Islamist ideology and the transformation of American society into a Muslim nation."

Note how they removed the timeframe, cut out the word “some” (so as to give the impression that all Muslims were being so accused), and eliminated the connection of the issue to Islamist ideology. The statement actually made in the book is true and easily proven. Again, this had to be a conscious decision to distort the text, knowing that if people saw the actual text they would see the accusations being made are false.

4. Among the hundreds of people cited in the bibliography is one article by Daniel Pipes, whom CAIR doesn’t like because of his effectiveness in critiquing them and their Islamist movement. This is, of course, an attempt to “blacklist” specific scholars who CAIR doesn’t like. I refuse, and so should everyone, to omit citing a scholar's good article because that individual has been put on a boycott list by any group. But aside from the quality of the work cited—which should be the only criterion used—the idea that finding one person you can slander among hundreds “proves” horrible bias defies every logical principle. Rather, it reveals the dishonest behavior of the accuser.

5. In one of the books, on Muslims in Europe, the chronology starts in 1988 and has a lot of references to terrorism. One CAIR official stated that this was discriminatory because "Muslims have been in Europe for thousands of years." Since Islam has only been around for about 1400 years, this is a good example of CAIR’s accuracy.

But, guess what? The book is about contemporary issues and focusing on terrorism and radical activities. A different book in the series deals with the Muslims in Europe and elsewhere around the world in a way with which even CAIR could find no fault.

What then are the implications of CAIR’s approach?

First, that no reference can be made to radical Islamists and their activities—i.e., CAIR itself and its friends—and anything of the srot will be portrayed falsely as derogatory toward all Muslims. In other words, under the guise of anti-defamation they want to camouflage their own activities. It is amusing to note that this includes points and claims made by the Islamists themselves thousands of times in their own literature.

Second, it is all right to lie to create phony “hate crimes” by deliberate misrepresentation.

Third, the media can usually be relied on to not spot these distortions and to not use them to reduce CAIR’s credibility at zero.

Fourth, for every one person who defies what CAIR permits, ten or dozens will be intimidated into silence or into actually writing CAIR-approved propaganda.

But suppose books are actually authored which are good in scholarly terms and accurate in factual terms, refusing to omit material which CAIR doesn’t like? Suppose a book series comes out which critiques Islamism but isn’t hateful toward Islam?

Well, then they have to make up stuff. But since CAIR cannot find anything not falsified, its campaign in fact amounts to an endorsement of the books' fairness and accuracy! Thanks for the compliment

What does this remind me of? Secret police forces in dictatorships, which have to manufacture conspiracies and heresies in order to have something to do and to terrify the population into subservience. “Hate crimes” are organized against dissidents to smear their name and destroy their careers.

Are people beginning to see through this kind of behavior?

To read about and order the book series go here.

RubinReports: CAIR Attacks Book Series on Islam; Unable to Find Anything "Wrong" It Fabricates Complaints

RubinReports: Russia Defies Obama Administration in Midst of Clinton's Visit; Clinton Defines U.S. Goals with Peace Process in a Way Sure to Fail

Russia Defies Obama Administration in Midst of Clinton's Visit; Clinton Defines U.S. Goals with Peace Process in a Way Sure to Fail

By Barry Rubin

Here's the headline: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says in a BBC interview:

"I think we're going to see the resumption of the negotiation track and that means that it is paying off because that's our goal. Let's get the parties into a discussion, let's [get] the principle issues on the table and let's begin to explore ways that we can resolve the differences."

Let's consider this a moment. What happens if the Palestinian Authority (PA)--as I expect--refuses to return to indirect talks? By making such a statement, Clinton is once again setting up the administration for a fall, promising something it cannot fullfil.

She is making U.S. policy subject to PA whims, in a situation where the U.S. government refuses to pressure the PA and the PA will escalate its demands to a point which Israel can't meet and which the U.S. government can't deliver. The PA acts this way for three reasons: it wants more, it doesn't want to talk to Israel, and it seeks to deepen the U.S.-Israel conflict.

But Clinton's statement, and that of other U.S. officials, also makes clear also that the U.S. goal here is not some grand comprehensive settlement or plan but simply to get talks going so that the administration can claim a success. Yet repeatedly the administration is its own worst enemy, something it has in common with its predecessor.


Meanwhile, we can see that the world's biggest issue isn't an Israeli announcement, during a visit by Vice-President Joe Biden, that in a few years and after three more stages of government consideration it will build some apartments in Jerusalem?

Russia openly defies the Obama Administration by insisting it will finish a nuclear plant for Iran, just when Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is visiting! A real slap in the face.

China, even more angry about U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and congressional human rights criticism, continues to make clear it won't support sanctions on Iran.

Increased sanctions on Iran seem no closer today than they were on January 21, 2009, the administration's first full day in office.

Syria, emboldened by U.S. criticisms of Israel, now says it will never reach peace with this government, while Palestinian Authority officials openly encourage violence.

Everything I've been saying for more than a year is--unfortunately--coming to pass. The administration has not a single foreign policy success and American credibility is shot to Hell. Efforts to deny this situation become increasingly ridiculous. Yet there is no sign that the administration is waking up--despite Clinton's sporadic and limited efforts to get it back into reality mode.

RubinReports: Russia Defies Obama Administration in Midst of Clinton's Visit; Clinton Defines U.S. Goals with Peace Process in a Way Sure to Fail

RubinReports: Leading Dutch Newspaper Accepts Antisemitic Theme

Leading Dutch Newspaper Accepts Antisemitic Theme

By Barry Rubin

Here is a small sign of the insanity let loose on the world. NRC Handelsblad is Holland's most prestigious newspaper. On the frontpage of its March 17 edition it carries an article that claims the "Israel lobby" is threatening to defeat President Barack Obama's health plan because of his tensions with Israel. The old "Jews control everything" libel. Of course, the very passionate battle over the health bill has nothing to do with the Middle East.

And what is the source of this article? A posting by a single left-wing blogger with no special source of information. Supposedly, good judgment and knowledge block the descent of the responsible mass media to nonsense, conspiracy-mongering, and slander. But when--as was shown in the Swedish case and every day in the British media--Israel or the Jews are involved, responsibility, even sanity, all too often vanishes.

There are scores, hundreds, of such incidents around the world daily, the great majority of which we never even hear about.


RubinReports: Leading Dutch Newspaper Accepts Antisemitic Theme

JEWISH THOUGHT OF THE DAY-The Purpose of Passover

The Purpose of Passover

“300 years ago, there came to the New World a boat, and its name was the Mayflower. The Mayflower’s landing on Plymouth Rock was one of the great historical events in the history of England and in the history of America. But I would like to ask any Englishman sitting here on the commission, what day did the Mayflower leave port? What date was it? I’d like to ask the Americans: do they know what date the Mayflower left port in England? How many people were on the boat? Who were their leaders? What kind of food did they eat on the boat?

More than 3300 years ago, long before the Mayflower, our people left Egypt, and every Jew in the world, wherever he is, knows what day they left. And he knows what food they ate. And we still eat that food every anniversary. And we know who our leader was. And we sit down and tell the story to our children and grandchildren

Click here to read more »

RubinReports: White House Ignores Iran’s Help to Al-Qaida in its Passion over Jerusalem Apartments

White House Ignores Iran’s Help to Al-Qaida in its Passion over Jerusalem Apartments

By Barry Rubin

The United States is at war with al-Qaida. Al-Qaida carried out the attack on the World Trade Center that killed 3,000 Americans. Al-Qaida is killing Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. So one would think the fact that al-Qaida has found a powerful ally would be a big story in the American media and by a big priority for setting off U.S. government anger.

And this would be especially so if that was explained by one of the most respected men in the country, a man who has access to the highest-level intelligence.

Not at all.

In the same testimony which created lots of discussion regarding remarks on the Israel-Palestinian issue, General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, revealed a bombshell story that has been ignored: Iran is helping al-Qaida attack Americans.

Iran, he said in military-speak, provides "a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaida's senior leadership to regional affiliates." Translation: Tehran is letting al-Qaida leaders travel freely back and forth to Pakistan and Afghanistan, using its territory as a safe haven, while permitting them to hold meetings to plan terrorist attacks for attacking U.S. targets and killing Americans. While nominally Iran sometimes takes these people into custody, that seems, Petraeus says, a fiction to fool foreigners.

Oh, and Petraeus added that Iran also helps the Taliban fight America in Afghanistan. Regarding Iraq, the general explains, "The Qods Force [an elite Iranian military group within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] also maintains its lethal support to Shia Iraqi militia groups, providing them with weapons, funding and training,"

So, Petraeus pointed out that Iran is helping al-Qaida against the United States and also, at times, Shia groups as well though these have been more quiet lately. In effect, the Tehran regime is at war with the United States. Yet this point is not being highlighted, nor does it stir rage in the hearts of White House officials or strenuous attempts to counter this threat.

There have been stories, some persuasive but not fully confirmed, about Iran's cooperation with al-Qaida for years. Frankly, I have been reluctant to write about this matter lest it be dismissed as being based on rumors, though even Syrian cooperation with al-Qaida which is crystal clear--the terrorists they are training, funding, equipping, and letting cross back and forth over the Syria-Iraq border are openly al-Qaida--has virtually never been mentioned by U.S. government officials and the point rarely made in the mass media.

But now Petraeus has shown Tehran's cooperation with al-Qaida to be true, and the U.S. government does nothing while maintaining that diplomatic engagement is still possible and dragging its feet on higher sanctions.

Meanwhile, you can read in the Washington Post a column by Robert Kagan, “Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama,” reporting how U.S. policies have dismayed allies as they coddled enemies. Readers of this blog heard this point made repeatedly over the last year ago. It is astonishing that policymakers and top opinionmakers still don't seem to grasp the danger.

But why should they when so much of the debate is dominated by nonsense. Thus, with typical New York Times silliness, Mark Landler writes in “Opportunity in a Fight With Israel”:

“For President Obama, getting into a serious fight with Israel carries obvious domestic and foreign political risks. But it may offer the administration a payoff it sees as worthwhile: shoring up Mr. Obama’s credibility as a Middle East peacemaker by showing doubtful Israelis and Palestinians that he has the fortitude to push the two sides toward an agreement.”

As so often happens, such statements are obviously ridiculous. Everyone knows the administration is willing to push Israel but has never shown the slightest effort toward pushing the Palestinians. In fourteen months there has not been a single public criticism of the Palestinian Authority despite its sabotage of any peace process. Presumably, the U.S. government pressed the PA enough to agree to indirect talks—scarcely a great achievement—but then the U.S. outrage over the apartment announcement, instead of handling it by making a quick private deal with Israel to postpone the project, let the PA escape once again.

That the PA has been allowed to portray merely negotiating to get a state as doing the United States a big favor is one of many bizarre dislocations of the last year. As for the Palestinians, of course, they don’t care about stopping the construction. Their concept of American credibility is whether the United States would give them everything they want with no concession whatsoever on their part. Such an attitude has been fed by Obama Administration policies.


As for the idea that bashing Israel is going to make Israelis see Obama as a more credible peacemaker is a statement which could only be made by someone who has zero knowledge about Israel. Perhaps pushing an Iran-Syria alliance which now uses al-Qaida as a client might make those regimes see Obama as a more credible opponent.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.


RubinReports: White House Ignores Iran’s Help to Al-Qaida in its Passion over Jerusalem Apartments

RubinReports: Today in the Fourth Grade

Today in the Fourth Grade

Again, a discussion on how the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" was biased against women and was hypocritical since it didn't include all sorts of groups including people who didn't own property. No other position was presented including, of course, the point that in the English language--and especially so in the eighteenth century--the word "men" covered all humans. Or that precisely because this position was laid out already in principle the vote could be extended over time.

By the way, I'm quite conscious that this account covers one county in Maryland and in other places--notably Texas--there are quite different controversies and arguments (which I cannot judge since I don't have the textbooks to see what they say) that things have gone too far in the other direction. I'm just writing about what can be seen by me first-hand.

RubinReports: Today in the Fourth Grade

Israel Matzav: IDF's 'non-confrontational' approach with 'Palestinians' nearly gets four soldiers killed

IDF's 'non-confrontational' approach with 'Palestinians' nearly gets four soldiers killed

On Friday, I reported that four IDF soldiers were nearly lynched on Thursday night in Hebron. At the time, I complained:

At least in Ramallah ten years ago, we were talking about two reservists on their way to duty. This is IDF soldiers going from one base to another. If you're going to expect them to go from Hebron to Kiryat Arba, at least equip them properly. Better yet, transport them in a secure manner.

As it turns out, three of the four soldiers were walking from Hebron to Kiryat Arba unarmed. That's absurd. And the armed soldier was the one who escaped(!) in the original report. Why 'escaped' rather than at least shooting in the air to scare the 'Palestinians' off? Here's why.

Residents of the local Jewish community blamed the IDF's non-confrontational policy vis-a-vis Arab rioters for the incident. “The fact that the soldiers did not shoot when they saw they were in danger is a direct result of the orders forbidding them from dealing with the Arab rioters [in Hevron] over the past few weeks,” residents said. Instead of putting a stop to violent riots, “IDF soldiers have been told to stand by and wait for PA forces, who are the only ones authorized to restore order.”

"This shocking incident should serve as a warning to the Defense Minister. While he praises the PA forces and cultivates them, the troops under his command have lost their power of deterrence,” they stated.

The 'residents of the local Jewish community' in Hebron are continually branded as hotheads who should be ignored. Except that this time, the IDF agrees:

The residents' opinion was backed by a commander from the Shimshon regiment, the regiment in which the soldiers in question serve. Speaking to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service, the commander warned that the IDF's policies regarding use of force were leaving soldiers with their hands tied in the face of PA Arab violence.

"We've been given orders that forbid firing in the air” to warn off attackers, he said. “If they throw firebombs at us, we're told to hide or to run away – that is the unequivocal order,” he continued.

"The situation is intolerable,” the commander stated. Soldiers are forbidden even to use non-fatal means of riot dispersal, such as tear gas or rubber bullets, when confronted by violent mobs, he said. “We can only use riot dispersal methods if the regiment commander gives his approval. There have been cases where they threw rocks and firebombs at us, we called the operations room to see what we could do, and we were told 'either wait for backup, or leave the area,'” he recalled.

Soldiers have been punished for firing warning shots in the air or using riot dispersal equipment even in cases where their lives were in danger, he reported.

"Why do they make soldiers carry so much equipment, if they aren't allowed to use it?!” the commander asked in frustration. “They enlist soldiers to fight terrorism, and then the top IDF commanders tie their hands and don't let them fight.”

Unbelievable. This would not be happening if Boogie Yaalon were Defense Minister. Read the whole thing.

If I were a soldier and felt my life was in danger, you can bet I'd use my weapon. Sitting in jail for a few months is better than being dead.

If anyone doesn't recognize it, the picture at the top is from the Ramallah lynch in October 2000.

Israel Matzav: IDF's 'non-confrontational' approach with 'Palestinians' nearly gets four soldiers killed

Israel Matzav: 'Palestinians' fly the flag, mainstream media ignores it

'Palestinians' fly the flag, mainstream media ignores it

If any of you sees this in a mainstream media outlet (especially in print or broadcast media), feel free to note it in the comments. I doubt you will see this picture in any other mainstream media outlet except where it came from, which is here (Hat Tip: Moti B).

Given the history of Muslim cooperation with Hitler YMS"H (may his name be obliterated), is anyone surprised?

These are the 'people' that Barack Hussein Obama wants to give a 'state.' What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: 'Palestinians' fly the flag, mainstream media ignores it

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu to meet Obama Tuesday

Netanyahu to meet Obama Tuesday

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

Just before the Sabbath it was announced that Prime Minister Netanyahu would meet with President Obama on Tuesday.

US President Barack Obama will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on Tuesday, according to a Fox News report. Netanyahu is also slated to make a speech during the Jewish lobby group AIPAC convention.

I can't wait to see what this costs us.

/sarc

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu to meet Obama Tuesday
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...