Israel Matzav: More details emerge on Mabhouh liquidation

More details emerge on Mabhouh liquidation

Haaretz has more details on the liquidation of Hamas terrorist and weapons supplier Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai last month.

Ten agents, including three women, participated in the assassination of senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January, according to Intelligence Online, a Paris-based journal dedicated to tracking intelligence activity worldwide.

The journal published what it termed "new details" about the operation, which has been widely attributed to Israel's Mossad intelligence service. It said that one of the female agents dressed herself in the uniform of a reception clerk at Al Bustan Rotana, the hotel where Mabhouh was staying, and then knocked on his door.

When he opened it her fellow operatives rushed him and stunned him with an electric device, the journal said, then they injected poison into his veins, in order to disguise the cause of death.

All 10 agents carried European passports, the journal said.

Previous reports spoke of seven agents, all carrying Irish passports.

Read the whole thing. The world is a better place without that creep. Heh.

Israel Matzav: More details emerge on Mabhouh liquidation

Israel Matzav: Charlie Wilson remembered as friend of Israel

Charlie Wilson remembered as friend of Israel

Former Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-Tx) died of a heart attack on Wednesday. He was 76. Wilson, pictured in his office in 1988 holding a British rifle is remembered by Politico's Laura Rozen as a friend of Israel, Pakistan and the CIA.

His friend Zvi Rafiah said Wilson died of a heart attack, following an earlier heart transplant operation.

Wilson is the second (former) House Appropriations defense subcommittee member to die this week, after John Murtha.

Wilson's seat on both the House appropriations defense and foreign ops subcommittees gave him huge -- and to the public largely invisible -- influence to finance the CIA's covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and thus, guide the policy.

Both the book and film offer glimpses of Wilson enlisting Rafiah (actually a former Israeli embassy official but mis-portrayed in the film as an ex-Mossad arms dealer) to help procure stocks of Soviet weaponry Israel had seized in wars against then Soviet-backed Arab foes. The CIA was considering procuring the Soviet arms to supply to the Afghan mujahadeen -- to keep the U.S. role plausibly deniable.

No military hardware deal ever came of those discussions, Rafiah told me today.

"He was my best friend," Rafiah said of Wilson.

"I first met him on the second day of the Yom Kippur War in 1973," Rafiah said.

At the time, Rafiah was the Israeli embassy in Washington's first Congressional liaison. "I got a telephone call from our defense attache telling me that a congressman wants to get a briefing on the war."

"So I went up to his office. And in comes a tall guy, in a hat and boots, a real Texan," Rafiah recalled. "He was a graduate of the Annapolis Naval Academy, and he knew about wars ... I don't want to say it was love at first sight."

"And then when we got the first ceasefire, he went over there," Rafiah added.

"Charlie Wilson when he was a Congressman was one of the best friends that Israel had on Capitol Hill," Rafiah said, adding that Wilson was also a friend of Egypt and Pakistan, "but never at the expense of Israel."

Wilson served 12 terms in Congress before the Left took over the Democratic party.

Israel Matzav: Charlie Wilson remembered as friend of Israel

Israel Matzav: How 'lawfare' is used to silence critics of Islam

How 'lawfare' is used to silence critics of Islam

Writing in London's Guardian, Alan Dershowitz and Elizabeth Samson describe several cases of libel lawsuits being used as 'lawfare' to silence critics of Islam. Here's one example.

In 2005, the Islamic Society of Boston sued the Boston Herald and nearly a dozen others for defamation. The ISB was building New England's largest Islamic centre and the defendants were raising legitimate questions about the ISB's connections to terrorist financing and hate speech. Though the ISB dropped the lawsuit – just weeks before some of their leaders were to give sworn testimony – the defendants incurred close to $2m in legal

The ISB lawsuit had even more damaging consequences. Howie Carr, a columnist for the Boston Herald, said he "know[s] the ISB lawsuit has had a chilling effect on journalists in Boston". An analysis of the articles printed in the Herald from summer 2003 to winter 2007 supports Carr's statement. Between summer 2003 and winter 2005, the Herald published 19 articles mentioning the ISB's alleged connection with radical Islamic groups. After the lawsuit began in 2005 until winter 2007, the paper whitewashed its reporting and no longer mentioned radicalism in the 20 articles that covered the ISB's activities during that period.

Before 2001, there were five documented defamation cases relating to radical Islamic groups. After 2001, that number rose sharply. Though roughly 20 cases have been identified, the extent of the problem is difficult to determine since these cases are typically settled out of court. Often, the plaintiffs have substantial resources and the defendants cannot afford the legal costs.

A 2004 survey by the American Society of Journalists and Authors found that about 70% of freelance writers earn less than $50,000 annually. It is not surprising then that some would silence themselves, calculating that the personal cost of a lawsuit outweighs the need to inform the public. It is also impossible to know how many threats of a lawsuit have led to self-censorship or inappropriate retractions by writers who fear that their writing, while protected as free speech, will land them in court.

Hmmm.

Israel Matzav: How 'lawfare' is used to silence critics of Islam

Israel Matzav: Roger Simon's interview with Michael Oren

Roger Simon's interview with Michael Oren

Roger Simon interviews Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Part 1 is here.

Israel Matzav: Roger Simon's interview with Michael Oren

Israel Matzav: Guess who's in bed with J Street

Guess who's in bed with J Street

Remember Nadav Tamir, the Livni holdover (shown here with Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick - another loser on his way out) who attacked the Netanyahu government's handling of its relations with the United States, and was nearly forced out of his position? Well, now that the Netanyahu government has decided to turn Left with its 'settlement freeze,' it has apparently also sanctioned Tamir attending J Street events in Boston.

Three months after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren pointedly turned down an invitation to attend J Street’s first annual convention in Washington, Israel’s consul-general attended one of the group’s functions last week in Boston.

The Jerusalem Post has learned that the consul-general, Nadav Tamir, went to the event only after seeking, and getting, a green light from the Foreign Ministry. The Post learned that Tamir was told by the ministry that he could attend the event, but not be one of its speakers.

...

One senior government official denied that the decision to let Tamir attend the event represented an overall change of policy toward the organization, but said rather that permission was granted on an individual basis for Tamir to attend a “local event.”

Another diplomatic official, however, said the permission given to the consul-general indicated that the original policy toward the organization – the one reflected by Oren’s snub – was “unsustainable” in the long run.

The event in Boston, the official said, was co-sponsored by other Jewish organizations, and Israeli officials cannot refuse to attend events sponsored by a number of different groups just because J Street is involved.

My first reaction to this was "Michael Oren must be thrilled," but apparently Oren has also been ordered to tone down opposition to the pro-Israel pro-'peace' Leftist loons.

In an interview with The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles published this week, Oren said that his dispute with J Street is close to resolution and that the group was “much more in the mainstream.”

“The major concern with J Street was their position on security issues, not the peace process,” he said.

What does that mean? Since when doesn't the 'peace process' include 'security concerns'? And since when are we not concerned about J Street's opposition to sanctions against Iran?

Oren cited J Street’s support in December for the Iran sanctions bill advanced by US Rep. Howard Berman (D-California), the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, and its call on the UN not to be one-sided in its handling of the Goldstone Commission’s allegations of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

“J Street has now come and supported Congressman Berman’s Iran sanction bill; it has condemned the Goldstone Report; it has denounced the British court’s decision to try Tzipi Livni for war crimes, which puts J Street much more into the mainstream,” Oren said.

Okay, so J Street did come out in favor of Berman's bill after the battle was won. But I don't recall them retracting their opposition to the resolution against Goldstone. So why is the Netanyahu government suddenly bringing them back into the fold? Grrr....

Israel Matzav: Guess who's in bed with J Street

Israel Matzav: The Auschwitz album

The Auschwitz album

You can watch a picture album of the selection process at Auschwitz by going here. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes he can be more 'efficient' than the Germans. The video is about five minutes long and is quite moving.

Israel Matzav: The Auschwitz album

Israel Matzav: Will China abstain on Iran sanctions?

Will China abstain on Iran sanctions?

The Times of London suggests that China is averse to using its veto power in the UN Security Council, and although it will not vote in favor of sanctions, it might abstain, provided that the sanctions don't target Iran's energy sector (which, of course, are the sanctions with the best chance of succeeding).

Precisely targeted financial sanctions may be marginally more palatable and could yet stand a chance. For all its recent baring of teeth in Washington’s direction, China does not court international confrontation. Its latest assertiveness is aimed as much at making its own people feel better about their economic hardships as it is at reminding the US that Beijing is nipping at its heels.

Above all, China does not like to feel exposed: since it joined the Security Council as a permanent member in 1971, it has used its veto only twice. In the same period, the US has done so 76 times. In all that time, China has never voted against economic sanctions, although it has frequently abstained. It did exactly that even when Sudan was sanctioned over Darfur and then referred to the International Criminal Court, despite China’s lucrative interests there.

There is, therefore, little chance of persuading China to support sanctions against Iran in the time remaining — but hopes of bringing Russia over have brightened.

If so, history suggests China will hesitate to use its veto. If it abstains, then sanctions could pass. The question then is: will they work?

Those veto statistics are misleading. How many of those 76 US vetoes related to Israel? I am going to guess most of them. Why does anyone think that China won't try to protect Iran the same way that the US tries to protect Israel in the Security Council? And there's a big difference between China's 'lucrative interests' in Sudan and its need for oil from Iran, without which its economy could shut down.

There was talk several months ago of offering China oil from someplace other than Iran. That talk never went anywhere. But without an alternative source of oil supply, I would bet on the Chinese using their Security Council veto on sanctions.

Israel Matzav: Will China abstain on Iran sanctions?

Israel Matzav: 'We're Swiss and we don't do sanctions'

'We're Swiss and we don't do sanctions'

With everything else going on with Iran, this story, which may be more important than any of the sanctions stories, is about to slip under the radar screen.

With the World's major powers trying to reach an agreement on the best and most effective way to sanction Iran, an Iranian official announced that Iran is ready to sell one million cubic meters of natural gas per day to Switzerland under a 2008 deal between Iran and Switzerland. Under the original terms of the deal, delivery was not supposed to start until 2011.

A day after US President Barack Obama said the international community was “moving along fairly quickly” toward imposing new sanctions on Iran, which defiantly began enriching uranium to a higher level, a senior Iranian oil official said his country is ready to provide Switzerland with about one million cubic meters of natural gas per day, Iranian Press TV reported on Wednesday.

"Already Iran is ready to start its gas exports to this European country based on the contract," the managing director of National Iranian Oil Co. Seifollah Jashnsaz reportedly told Mehr news agency.

In March 2008, the National Iranian Gas Export Company and Switzerland's Elektrizitaetsgesellschaft Laufenburg signed a 25-year deal for the delivery of over 5 billion cubic meters of gas per year.

Jashnsaz also reportedly said that Switzerland and Turkey are engaged in talks to pave the way for the delivery of Iranian gas, which would initially amount to 1.5 billion cubic meters per year to Switzerland, to increase to an annual 4 billion cubic meters by 2012.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: 'We're Swiss and we don't do sanctions'

Israel Matzav: Regime change in Iran won't solve the nuclear problem

Regime change in Iran won't solve the nuclear problem

In an earlier post, I reported that 86% of Iranians favor the pursuit of nuclear energy, including uranium enrichment, although only 38% favor the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

It's actually worse than that, because the Green leaders are even more radical on the pursuit of a nuclear than Ahmadinejad himself.

In October, negotiators in Geneva reached a deal that could have defused the nuclear issue, at least for a while: Iran would send much of its low-enriched uranium abroad, where it would be further enriched and then returned in a form suited for medical use and not weaponizable.

Then, after Ahmadinejad hailed this deal as a “victory” for Iran, it was denounced not just by some conservatives in Tehran but by the “progressive” Mousavi. The deal collapsed, and Ahmadinejad eventually discovered the wisdom of Mousavi’s position. Just this week he proudly announced that the uranium in question would be enriched by Iran — not to weapons-grade levels (90 percent), but to medical-use levels (20 percent), an achievement that would move Iranian scientists along the learning curve toward weapons-grade.

...

In any event, last week saw the release of a big report that helps explain why playing the nuclear card is such good politics. It’s an analysis by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of several opinion polls conducted in Iran over the past year. (There’s a tendency on the part of American commentators to minimize the importance of public opinion in authoritarian states, but the reason authoritarians try so heavy-handedly to manipulate opinion is that they fear it — especially once an unruly opposition movement has emerged, as in Iran.)

Perhaps the best news in the PIPA report is that the Iranian public isn’t committed to getting the bomb. Given the choice between developing 1) nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, 2) nuclear energy only or 3) no nuclear technology, 55 percent of Iranians (and 57 percent of Mousavi supporters) chose door number two, while only 38 percent (and 37 percent) wanted the bomb.

But note that almost no one chose door number three. So if your goal is to get Iran to give up its nuclear program altogether, I recommend finding another goal.

Why such strong support for nuclear energy in a country whose natural endowments don’t exactly leave it devoid of energy sources? The history of Iran’s nuclear program is long and tortuous, and there have definitely been periods (possibly including now) when the government was trying to develop nukes. But at the popular level, a separate motivation has taken shape: pride in the technical prowess embodied in the program.

This pride may have grown more intense and nationalistic under Western pressure to constrain the program. Though most Iranians say sanctions already imposed on the country have hurt it, 86 percent of them — and 78 percent of Mousavi supporters — say that Iran should not “give up its nuclear activities regardless of the circumstances.”

The good news is that most Iranians claim that they don't want nuclear weapons. The problem is that unless you have a way of really supervising the goings on (much more closely than the current vintage of IAEA inspections), you can't ensure that an undemocratic government like Iran's won't develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, if the opposition shares Ahmadinejad's hostility for the US, Israel and other Western countries (which it may), it will have every motivation to continue trying to pursue a nuclear weapon in secret.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Regime change in Iran won't solve the nuclear problem

Israel Matzav: Good news: US to help Jordan go nuclear

Good news: US to help Jordan go nuclear

Well, isn't this just the perfect solution to confronting a nuclear Iran? Just let Jordan go nuclear too (along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several other countries in the region). And once Israel is surrounded by nuclear powers on all sides... then what? That, apparently, is the Obama administration's strategy for dealing with a nuclear Iran rather than confronting the Ahmadinejad regime.

An accord with King Abdullah II's government in Amman would allow U.S. firms to transfer nuclear equipment, fuel and expertise to Jordan, which is one of only two Arab countries to have signed a peace agreement with Israel.

President Barack Obama has pledged to assist developing nations in pursuing civilian nuclear-power programs in exchange for guarantees they won't seek to produce atomic bombs.

U.S. officials cite the cooperation agreement signed with the U.A.E. last year as a model for the peaceful development of nuclear power. Under the deal, Abu Dhabi provided assurances it won't seek to enrich uranium on its soil. The technologies required to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel also can be used to produce weapons-grade materials.

A potential stumbling block in the Jordan-U.S. deliberations, according to participants, is whether Amman will follow the U.A.E.'s lead and provide guarantees that it won't enrich uranium domestically. The U.A.E., under the terms of its pact with Washington, could demand a renegotiation if another Middle Eastern country secures a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the U.S. under terms more favorable than Abu Dhabi's.

Jordan's agreement could face hurdles in Congress if Amman doesn't approve a zero-enrichment clause. "If Jordan wants to enrich … then the U.A.E. would also have the right to renegotiate," said a congressional aide working on nuclear issues. "This situation threatens to touch off a lot of regional tension, and we would oppose."

And what if they agree not to enrich uranium, as Iran did under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then violate that commitment as Iran has done? What will you do then? Call on Israel to give up some more of its heartland to the 'Palestinians'? And what if Jordan is invaded by one of its neighbors and its nuclear capability falls into the hands of - for example - Bashar al-Assad's Syria? What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Good news: US to help Jordan go nuclear

Israel Matzav: Ahmadinejad to Assad: 'Let's wipe out Israel'

Ahmadinejad to Assad: 'Let's wipe out Israel'

Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported on Thursday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that in the event of an Israeli attack on one of their countries, Israel should be wiped out.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Syrian counterpart that Israel should be resisted and finished off if it launched military action in the region, state broadcaster IRIB reported on Thursday.

"We have reliable information ... that the Zionist regime is after finding a way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats from the people of Gaza and Lebanon’s Hezbollah," he told Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

"If the Zionist regime should repeat its mistakes and initiate a military operation, then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all," Ahmadinejad said in the telephone conversation on Wednesday evening.

Ahmadinejad, who has often predicted the imminent demise of the Jewish state, said Iran would remain on the side of regional nations including Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Let's see who wipes out whom. Israel will soon have no choice but to attack.

Israel Matzav: Ahmadinejad to Assad: 'Let's wipe out Israel'

Israel Matzav: A'jad says Iran has enriched uranium to 20%, can go to 80%

A'jad says Iran has enriched uranium to 20%, can go to 80%

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Thursday morning that his regime has enriched uranium to 20% purity, and is capable of going to 80% whenever they choose to do so.

In his central Revolution Day speech in Tehran, Ahmadinejad told the West: "Know that if we want, our nation has enough courage to say loud and clear that we want to manufacture nuclear weapons and to manufacture them without being afraid of you...

Even now we have the ability to enrich [uranium] to over 80%, but since we have no need, we are not enriching [uranium] to this level... Listen carefully, we are not liars and cowards like you. Who said that you will manufacture [20%] uranium and we will buy it from you? Maybe [it should be] the other way around?...

The day before yesterday we started to manufacture 20% nuclear fuel... Today I say proudly that the Iranian nation has laser technology, and we will use wherever it is necessary."

What you won't hear from the mainstream media - because the foreign correspondents are not being allowed to report it - is that while Ahamdinejad said that, thousands of Iranians were chanting "death to the dictator," according to various tweets I have seen. As I am typing this, there are riots all over Iran including just about all of the major cities. For those who are interested in following the action, you can search #iranelection on Twitter, where it's a trending topic.

Foreign media were only allowed to cover the ceremonies in the square and the speech by Ahmadinejad, with photographers bussed to the site and then away. There is an explicit ban on covering opposition protests.

But Ahmadinejad was quite explicit that Iran has enriched to the 20% level, and as you may recall, once you reach 20%, it's very easy to go higher:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Thursday that the Islamic republic has produced its first package of highly enriched uranium just two days after beginning the process. "We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don't enrich [to this level] because we don't need it," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

"I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said, referring to the recently begun process of enriching Iran's uranium stockpile to higher levels.

Ahmadinejad claimed again that his country is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

"When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb," he told the crowd. "If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it ... our nation has the courage to explicitly say it and build it and not fear you."

There may be a reason Ahamdinejad is saying that: Most Iranians don't want a nuclear weapon.

According to an analysis by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) only about a third of Iranians want a nuclear bomb.

The study found that while 86% of Iranians say that Iran should pursue nuclear power only 38% believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon.

But that doesn't mean that the regime is not producing a nuclear weapon.

Among other reports I have seen on Twitter:

1. Access to gmail from accounts in Iran have been cut.

2. Cell phone service in Tehran is sporadic.

3. Police are firing paint balls at protesters to make it easier to arrest them later.

4. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi expects to be arrested on Friday.

There's a fairly good summary of the day's events (thus far) here.

Israel Matzav: A'jad says Iran has enriched uranium to 20%, can go to 80%

Israel Matzav: Diaspora up in arms over New Israel Fund

Diaspora up in arms over New Israel Fund

Reading all the uproar over the New Israel Fund over the last week or so, I cannot help but wonder why so many people in the diaspora apparently didn't know that NIF supports organizations that seek to undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish state. I've known this for about 15 years! Maybe people finally noticed this time the NIF's position was so blatantly opposed to the Jewish consensus: Operation Cast Lead was a very popular war (over 90% Jewish approval), and at least in the US and in Israel, most people seem to understand that the Goldstone Report was hopelessly biased.

In any event, the diaspora is apparently quite up in arms over the New Israel Fund's support for organizations that provided biased, anti-Israel material to Goldstone.

Bar-Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg..., who also is director of NGO Monitor stated Wednesday, “NIF claims to provide broad support for different groups in Israel, but many of its actions promote a very narrow and radical agenda. The most politicized NGOs – including B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel — receive about 20 percent of NIF’s budget. They use these funds to manipulate Israeli politics, while exploiting human rights rhetoric to demonize responses to terror.”

In Australia, Danny Lamm, president of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, cancelled a meeting in Melbourne at which NIF head Naomi Chazan was due to speak, according to the Jewish Australian News Service. He said several NIF-funded groups are “alleged to have actively reinforced a worldwide propaganda campaign against Israel, using the vicious rhetoric of apartheid, using ‘lawfare’ to threaten Israel’s leaders and soldiers should they travel, and using and supporting boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaigns.”

Lamm pointed out the Council has no issue with the NIF’s principles. “We, too, very much want peace between Israel, the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors…. The Zionist Council of Victoria (ZCV) does not have a political argument with the NIF,” he said. Lamm asked, “How can the NIF support an organization like Adalah when, despite having as its mission the protection of Arab civil rights, routinely accuses Israel of implementing ‘apartheid’ and of committing war crimes?”

...

Writing in the generally pro-Orthodox and nationalist New York Jewish Week, investigative journalist David Bedein wrote, “The New Israel Fund, in its defense, says it does not support those who demonize Israel or call for divestment or boycott of Israel, and that it will not assist those who advocate the 'right of return' for Palestinians to reclaim land lost to them in 1948.”

Bedein then noted that NIF funds the Coalition of Women for Peace, whose keynote speaker, Naomi Klein, called for a boycott of Israel and sanctions against the Jewish State. He added that the NIF-funded Adalah group “expresses support for Sheik Raad Salah, the leader of the northern branch of Israel’s Islamic movement, whose incitement against Israel is legendary. Salah claims that there was never a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount and has called for an Intifada to protect Al-Aqsa from a Jewish plot."

Writing in the Forward, Shmuel Rosner pretty much gets it right.

Not long ago, when J Street, a new dovish Jewish lobby, was established in Washington, its supporters were complaining that the American Jewish debate over Israel had been muted, hushed by the Jewish establishment. We should have a debate about Israel as fierce and as vigorous as Israelis themselves have, those behind J Street kept saying. Why can Israelis air their differences with such force and we American Jews can’t? Why can’t we be as blunt and aggressive when we disagree with Israel’s policies?

Apparently, such comparisons work for the proponents of “open debate” only when they themselves benefit from it. They enjoy the intensity of the Israeli domestic debate, the bluntness of it, but only when it serves their goals. Now — when the dragon of Israel’s aggressive public discourse has seared the holier-than-thou New Israel Fund — fierce debate doesn’t seem as appealing.

Granted, the criticism of NIF was at times ugly in tone, too personal and quite disgusting in its use of tasteless images of NIF’s president, Naomi Chazan (the kinds of things one typically finds in fierce Israeli debates). But it is also a manifestation of real concerns and legitimate frustrations that Israelis have with the way liberal American Jews and their Israeli emissaries try to affect Israeli society.

Yes, it was a blunt message: NIF, we don’t like how you strengthen organizations that we find harmful to Israel. We don’t like that your grants support anti-Zionist Arab groups, that you help people who busy themselves bad-mouthing Israel and its policies around the world, that you have too many friends who seem to think that Israel can do no right, that you seem quite unmoved by the anxieties of Israelis who worry about the likes of the Goldstone Report and quite unready to share the burden of rebutting unfair criticisms of Israel.

I don’t expect NIF and its beneficiaries to enjoy such a message. But this isn’t McCarthyism. It’s telling the NIF crowd the blunt truth, and maybe, hopefully, making them realize that while they’re busy making their liberal benefactors abroad happy, they’ve lost touch with Israelis.

...

The dire predictions about the future of Israeli democracy are being propagated by those who got tired of trying to persuade Israelis and rally them to their cause — the real “democratic” way. Instead, they have decided to force Israelis into submission by way of marshaling external pressure. While this approach may succeed in frightening their allies abroad, it’s not going to win them many new friends at home.

Rosner also refers to NIF's contributions to the Goldstone Report as 'unintended.' I would not go that far. While NIF may not have handed over material to Goldstone and may not have instructed the organizations it supports to do so, it was at least aware of the possibility that they might and did nothing to stop them. In legal terms, they were grossly negligent. At best.

Read the whole thing. (There are other things there with which I don't agree, but he got the NIF part right).

By the way, the Im Tirtzu report is now available online (133-page pdf) (Hat Tip: Daled Amos).

Israel Matzav: Diaspora up in arms over New Israel Fund

Israel Matzav: British police investigating threat to Ayalon

British police investigating threat to Ayalon

British police are investigating a Muslim student at Oxford University who shouted "itabach al yahud" ("slaughter the Jews" in Arabic) as he was being expelled from a lecture given by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Monday night. The student was removed from the lecture for heckling Ayalon. The incident was referred to the police on Tuesday.

Thames Valley Police confirmed on Wednesday that they had received a complaint and were considering a charge of racially aggravated public disorder.

A police spokesman told The Jerusalem Post they were taking the matter “very seriously,” that they were at the very early stages of investigation and that no arrests had yet been made.

The university has promised to look into the incident once the police have completed their investigation.

“Our policy is always to await the outcome of police investigations where criminal offenses are alleged, and to look at any internal disciplinary process after the police have finished their investigation,” an Oxford University spokesperson told the Post. “So we will await the outcome. We abhor racism but obviously now this is in police hands we cannot comment on the individual case.”

The Oxford University Student Union released the following statement condemning the disturbances at the event and distancing itself from the individual.

“Whilst the vast majority of the audience behaved in an orderly and responsible fashion, some members continually interrupted the speech and one individual in particular appears to have made a directly anti-Semitic remark. These individuals exceeded the principles of free speech that the Society upholds. They and their remarks are not representative of this Society, nor the vast majority of the audience. The Oxford Union will not tolerate this kind of behavior by its members.

"The president of the Student Union, Stuart Cullen, has launched an investigation to identify the members who disrupted the event.

“The Union will be taking disciplinary action against these members, in accordance with the Society’s rules. The president praised the work of the security and local police on the night and expressed his gratitude for their help, as well as that of the Israeli embassy, in coordinating the event.

“The Oxford Union believes in the rights of free speech and protecting our invited speakers' ability to express themselves in an orderly and disciplined environment. We further believe that our members have the right to challenge and question the speakers in keeping with the Society's expectations of good conduct.”

Ayalon had considered pressing charges before police began their investigation.

I would call that more than an anti-Semitic 'remark.' I would call it a threat.

Israel Matzav: British police investigating threat to Ayalon

Israel Matzav: A European-trained murderer

A European-trained murderer

I already noted on Wednesday that the IDF soldier who was murdered at Tapuach Junction on Wednesday afternoon was murdered by a 'Palestinian policeman.' More details have come out regarding the murderer and they're not pretty and don't bode well for the possibility of giving any kind of security control to 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. The murderer was a high ranking officer in the 'Palestinian police.'

IDF sources said it appeared Hatib had acted alone and had lain in wait for a military target, since he had waited on the side of the road when he could have attacked Israelis at a nearby hitchhiking post.

Khatib is survived by parents and five siblings. Several years ago, his uncle was killed in action while serving in the army and during the Second Lebanon War, his aunt was killed when a Katyusha rocket fired by Hizbullah hit her house.

IDF sources said the attacker was the head of bureau for the PA’s Ramallah police chief. IDF sources said that the PA police were trained by a European Union organization, based in Ramallah, called the EUPOL COPPS (the EU Police Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support).

EUPOL COPPS representatives were unavailable for comment.

Brig.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai, head of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, spoke with senior PA officials and updated them on the attack. The Palestinians told Mordechai that they planned to conduct their own independent investigation into the incident.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad denounced the attack and said it “conflicts with our national interests.” He pledged to take steps to prevent such incidents in the future, while endorsing “peaceful resistance” against settlements and the security barrier.

Note Fayyad's reaction: It's not that the attack is wrong because it's wrong to murder people in cold blood or because it's wrong for 'Palestinians' to attack Jews. It's wrong because it 'conflicts with our national interests.' That's the same kind of 'condemnation' of terror attacks that we got from Yasser Arafat in the '90's. It says "It's okay to attack Jews, but please coordinate your attacks with us so that we don't look bad." All the European training in the world - even if it is well-intentioned (about which I have my doubts) - is not going to make it safe for Israel to give any 'Palestinian' entity security control over any significant part of Judea and Samaria unless and until they can bring themselves to say that murdering Jews and Israelis (the victim was a Druze soldier and was not Jewish) is wrong - and not just because it 'conflicts with their national interests.'

I don't believe the 'Palestinians' are capable of saying that with a straight face and I don't believe they ever will be - certainly not in our lifetimes. And I have my doubts about the Europeans as well.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: A European-trained murderer

Israel Matzav: Jewish students: Stop wavering!

Jewish students: Stop wavering!

In an editorial discussing Monday night's efforts to shout down Israeli ambassador to the United States, the JPost worries that Jewish students are wavering in their support of Israel. "It's never easy," says the Post.

It is true that Jerusalem speaks with many voices – but it has done so since the 1970s. Spurious efforts to “redefine” what “being pro-Israel means” are also not new.

Moreover, campuses have never been bastions of pro-Israelism. Not in the 1960s, when America’s black power movement became enamored with the Arab cause; not in the 1970s, when Jimmy Carter struggled in vain to conceal his contempt for Menachem Begin, and when Time magazine demonized our premier as a modern-day Fagin.

It was no picnic being on campus in the 1980s, when an NBC anchor stood on a Beirut rooftop, with smoke billowing in the background from burning PLO targets, and declared, “…Nothing like it has ever happened in this part of the world. I kept thinking... of the bombing of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War…We are now dealing with an imperial Israel.”

Nor did pro-Israel activism come easy in the early 1990s, when a “pitiless” Yitzhak Rabin expelled 415 Islamic fanatics to southern Lebanon; international pressure eventually forced him to rescind the move, setting the stage for the flowering of Hamas.

In the 21st century a difficult campus situation got even worse, partly due to an influx of Muslim students and the affinity of the anti-globalization movement for the Palestinian cause.

NONE OF this absolves the current cadre of Jewish student activists from stepping up to the plate. The Twitter generation even has the advantage of circumventing the silencing of Israel by utilizing new media.

Never has it been more important to cast timidity aside. To reassert that no one has a stronger claim to this land than the Jewish people; to denounce the notion that Israel’s “original sin” was being re-born after 2000 years; and to explain that the “occupation” and settlements are fundamentally red-herring issues that would fade away, were the Palestinians to negotiate in earnest for a two-state solution.

They're probably preaching to the choir, but as our rabbis tell us, "ain m'zarzin ela la'mzurazin" (we only push those who are already motivated to greater heights), so the encouragement to keep up the fight is definitely appropriate.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Jewish students: Stop wavering!

Israel Matzav: Feiglin warns of 'imminent murder' on the Temple Mount

Feiglin warns of 'imminent murder' on the Temple Mount

I have mentioned several times that I do not ascend the Temple Mount, because my rabbi does not allow it until the Messiah comes and we are purified from uncleanliness using the ashes of a red heifer (see Numbers 19). But other Jews do ascend the Temple Mount. Because of something that happened to him on the Temple Mount, Moshe Feiglin is worried about them.

Yesterday, I stood opposite the site of the Temple with my back to the El Aktza mosque. A group of Jews was at my side, listening to my explanations on the Temple Mount. As I was speaking, I noticed an Arab woman, covered from head to toe in robes and scarves, walking towards me in a threatening manner. There was no room for mistake, and all the people in the group noticed this woman. Usually, when a person is walking, he will choose a path that will not force him to collide with another person. But this woman confidently strode straight towards me. I was apprehensive that she would quickly take the few additional steps towards me and through her scarves and robes, draw out a knife and stab me.

As you know, Jews are permitted to enter the Temple Mount from the Mugrabim Gate only. Only Jews must undergo an extensive search to ensure that they are not carrying a prayer book or book of Psalms in their belongings, G-d forbid. The Arabs, on the other hand, may enter the Temple Mount from any of its gates without any sort of security check. This being the case, there is no problem for a potential Arab murderer to enter the Mount with his or her weapon.

I was apprehensive, but unwisely relied on the Israeli policeman who was watching our every move and was standing just a few steps away from our group. Everyone else in the group identified the approaching danger. It seemed clear that the policeman, who was ostensibly guarding us, would also identify the danger and would certainly attempt to defend us.

I forgot, though, that in reality, the role of the police on the Temple Mount has been limited to one issue: Ensuring that Jews do not pray there. They are not there to protect Israeli citizens from Arab weapons and murderers. The policeman who accompanies each Jew is concerned only with his lips – making sure that they are not moving in prayer.

As a Jew, I understand that I am the dangerous factor on the Temple Mount and in order not to encounter your wrath, I acted in accordance with your recommendations. In other words, I relied on the policeman.

The Arab woman came right up to me, pushed me and disappeared into the mosque. As opposed to everyone else in our group, the policeman did not notice what had happened.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Feiglin warns of 'imminent murder' on the Temple Mount

Israel Matzav: NY Times: Time's up for Iran

NY Times: Time's up for Iran

Even the New York Times now says that enough is enough.

Enough is enough. Iran needs to understand that its nuclear ambition comes with a very high cost.

President Obama said on Tuesday that the United States and its allies are “moving along fairly quickly” on a new sanctions resolution. He also said it would take several weeks to draft a proposal. That is not reassuring. Once a resolution is written, the negotiating process typically drags on for weeks, if not months.

...

The more the Security Council temporizes, compromises and weakens these resolutions, the more defiant and ambitious Iran becomes. If the Security Council can’t act swiftly, or decisively, the United States and its allies will have to come up with their own tough sanctions. They should be making a backup plan right now.

Read the whole thing.

When the sanctions don't work or aren't implemented quickly enough, will the Times back military action?

Dream on - there's not a mention of it. The Times and America's Left are where they should have been a year ago on the fierce moral urgency (no scare quotes) of stopping Iran. Sadly, they were more concerned with other matters in both the domestic and foreign spheres. History will not look kindly upon them.

Israel Matzav: NY Times: Time's up for Iran

Israel Matzav: Russia validates Western fears over Iran

Russia validates Western fears over Iran

Russia has admitted that Western fears that Iran is building a nuclear weapon are 'valid.'

Russia expressed greater concern over Iran’s nuclear programme on Tuesday, with one of the closest allies to Vladimir Putin, prime minister, describing western anxiety over Tehran’s plans as “valid”.

As Iran took an important step towards the possible manufacture of weapons grade uranium, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Presidential Security Council, said there was a “limit” to how much diplomacy could be used to solve the crisis.

In recent months, Dmitry Medvedev, president, has expressed growing concern over Iran’s programme, while Mr Putin – often regarded as the real source of power at the Kremlin – has resisted tough new United Nations sanctions against Tehran.

But following the announcement by Mahmoud Ahamdi-Nejad, Iran’s president, this week that Iran would produce uranium enriched to a 20 per cent level, Mr Patrushev, a former head of the FSB, the Russian security service, sharply criticised the move.

Mr Patrushev noted that Iran claimed it was not seeking nuclear weapons. But he told journalists in Moscow: “The actions it is taking, including when it began enriching low- enriched uranium to 20 per cent, raise doubts in other countries and those doubts are quite valid.” He added: “Political-diplomatic methods are important for a resolution, but there is a limit to everything.”

So will Russia support sanctions or won't they support sanctions? And if they will support sanctions, what sanctions will they support? Earlier this week, it was reported that Russia would only support sanctions that targeted Iran's nuclear program. Those are the same sanctions we've had for the last seven years, and it is long past the time where those can have any effect in time to stop Iran even if all the countries that have violated them suddenly buckled down and stopped violating them. But for what it's worth, Russia is said to be 'genuinely embarrassed' by Iran's thumbing its nose at the international community.

And then there's China, which is resisting any new sanctions at all.

China, however, remains firmly opposed and may maintain that stance whatever Russia decides. There is still doubt over whether the Kremlin will actually allow the passage of a sanctions resolution.

However, senior US diplomats believe that Iran's decision to press ahead with higher levels of enrichment has backfired. A senior US official said this was a "hollow" and "provocative" gesture that would make new sanctions more likely. "I think there is sufficient support in the council for sanctions," said the official. "The Iranians see the Russians clearly moving towards joining us in a sanctions resolution."

The official said there might be efforts to delay the passage of a resolution and to dilute it. "But I think before long it will be possible to achieve it," he said. "That means the Chinese will vote Yes or abstain, and I think they are likely to vote Yes."

Well, maybe. But it is long past time for delays. Delays are likely to mean that there will be no opportunity at all to try serious sanctions.

When the history of this period is written, it will be recognized that the entire crisis was caused by bumbling, inept and duplicit leaders who spoke out of both sides of their mouths and did not abide by their word.

I just hope that someone is around when this is over to write that history.

Israel Matzav: Russia validates Western fears over Iran

Israel Matzav: 'Crippling' sanctions?

'Crippling' sanctions?

Jennifer Rubin believes that Prime Minister Netanyahu is nervous - and rightfully so - that after waiting for months, the sanctions that the Obama administration will seek to impose on Iran will be less than crippling.

Bibi Netanyahu responded with a statement that seems as much aimed at the Obami as at the Iranians: “I believe that what is required right now is tough action from the international community. … This means not moderate sanctions, or watered-down sanctions. This means crippling sanctions, and these sanctions must be applied right now.”

What Bibi is referring to is no secret. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both been downplaying the “crippling” part of the “crippling sanctions” that the Obama team has been promising for months. They insist the sanctions must be focused so as not to impact the Iranian people. What those might look like and how we could possibly impact the regime by such narrowly focused measures have been left vague. Meanwhile, there are very serious sanctions that in slightly different forms have passed both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, but the Obama team has been noticeably cool to those. Too crippling, I suppose.

So let’s see if, in the face of the abject failure of its engagement strategy, and with bipartisan support in Congress for very tough sanctions — “not moderate sanctions, or watered-down sanctions” — the Obami can make a final stab at preventing the revolutionary Islamic state from going nuclear. I suppose we’ll know “within weeks” — but then the Obama team was supposed to get serious in September, and again at the close of 2009. We’ve seen this routine before. Bibi is right to be nervous.

Netanyahu is nervous, but not over the prospect that Obama will impose less than crippling sanctions. It's been a foregone conclusion here for months that the time for sanctions had long since passed and in any event President Obumbler would not authorize any sanctions that had a chance of having an effect. I'm sure that's been clear to Bibi since his first meeting with Obama back in May.

What Bibi must be nervous about is whether the action that he will have to take against Iran will be supported - or at least not opposed - by the United States and Europe. Bibi understands that with respect to Iran, military intervention is no longer a question of whether, but a question of when and how.

Israel Matzav: 'Crippling' sanctions?

Israel Matzav: Decrying anti-Semitism, Guardian style

Decrying anti-Semitism, Guardian style

I hope you didn't expect al-Guardian to go after the real thing. I hope you don't expect them to expose the anti-Semitism of some of their own columnists and Comment is Free writers. But this is the kind of anti-Semitism the Guardian wants to be against: People who call the likes of Amira Hass, Mikey Lerner, Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappe and Gonen Segev and more than 8000 others "Self-Hating and/or Israel Threatening Jews."

Well, I don't agree with the entire ... list either (I agree with most of the names I recognized), and it's got far too much profanity for my taste. But the .... list is not where I would start to attack anti-Semitism.

And yes, the Guardian writer, Yigal Bronner, has more than earned his place on the list assuming that what they write about him is true.

Israel Matzav: Decrying anti-Semitism, Guardian style

Love of the Land: A Usurpation of National Sovereignty

A Usurpation of National Sovereignty

Israel fights back against a U.N. power grab.


Peter Berkowitz
National Review Online
10 February '10

Tel Aviv — The controversy sparked by the Sept. 15, 2009, publication of the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report, may appear to exclusively concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, it involves a usurpation of national sovereignty by international law that has implications well beyond Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighborhood.

The latest round in this controversy got underway on January 29, when Israel delivered “Gaza Operation Investigations: An Update” to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The carefully crafted 46-page document affirmed Israel’s unequivocal commitment to the law of armed conflict, and it reported substantial progress in investigating allegations of unlawful conduct against Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers and commanders arising from Operation Cast Lead.

Operation Cast Lead took place from Dec. 28, 2008, to Jan. 18, 2009. Israel carried out the operation because Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups had launched approximately 12,000 rocket and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip since 2000 against civilian populations in southern Israel. Paradoxically, given that Hamas’s deliberate and premeditated attacks on Israeli civilian populations and its use of fellow Palestinians as human shields were flagrant war crimes, international ire has from the outset swirled around the alleged criminality of Israel’s operation.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: A Usurpation of National Sovereignty

Love of the Land: Time's McGirk Sides With Opponents of Jerusalem Archeology

Time's McGirk Sides With Opponents of Jerusalem Archeology

Ricki Hollander
CAMERA
10 February '10

Tim McGirk, Time Magazine's Jerusalem bureau chief, is notorious for his lack of impartiality on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Time and again, he has departed from the code of journalistic ethics by failing to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” and by misleading readers with false information. In a Feb. 8, 2010 article entitled “Archaeology in Jerusalem: Digging Up Trouble,” McGirk once again replaces objective reporting with advocacy journalism, this time promoting opponents of archeological excavations in the City of David.

Jerusalem's past, present and future is a subject of controversy that arouses passionate opinion and positions on both sides. One of the main obstacles to previous peace‑making efforts has been the issue of dividing Jerusalem and control over its holy sites. Muslim denial of Judaism's historical and religious ties to Jerusalem, the Waqf's illegal construction on the Temple Mount, and the violent response to Jewish archeological digs have long stymied Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. (See "The Battle Over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount".) While the strongest opposition to the archeological excavations taking place in Jerusalem comes from Palestinian and Muslim leaders who for political reasons deny a Jewish historic bond to the city's holy sites, opposition has also come from pro‑Palestinian activists who oppose Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem's holy basin and from revisionist or minimalist archeologists who reject the Bible as a guide to the history of ancient Israel.

Support for the archeological studies come not only from right‑wing Jewish nationalists but from archeologists, historians and scholars throughout the world who believe that the discoveries support biblical accounts of a united Davidian monarchy.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Time's McGirk Sides With Opponents of Jerusalem Archeology

Love of the Land: Manhigut Yehudit's Ideas Going Mainstream

Manhigut Yehudit's Ideas Going Mainstream

Manhigut Yehudit
11 February '10

Only two weeks ago we pointed out how - slowly but surely - ideas that Manhigut Yehudit has been introducing into public discourse are eventually integrated as societal norms and become legislative proposals. We had mentioned the proposed law to give honorably discharged soldiers free land, submitted by MK Gilah Gamliel and the change in the government's handling of the illegal immigrant issue and its decision to close Israel's border with Egypt.

This week, another Manhigut Yehudit idea went mainstream, with PM Netanyahu's endorsement of the Yisrael Beiteinu proposal to allow Israeli expatriates to vote.

For Netanyahu and Lieberman, the proposed law is motivated by narrow political interests: Most Israelis are loyal to their identity and Land and naturally lean toward the right. Granting voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Israeli expatriates neutralizes the power of the Arab Knesset bloc and strengthens the right. But even though he may be governed by narrow interests, the fact that the PM has endorsed this law is a step in the right direction.

Manhigut Yehudit has repeatedly called for the granting of voting rights to every Jew as a matter of principle. The practical way to begin is to grant voting rights to those people who are already Israeli citizens. We do not propose this for opportunistic reasons but because we believe that the State of Israel is the state of the entire Jewish nation.

For more on voting rights for expatriates and world Jewry, see Moshe Feiglin's article, Israeli Voting Rights for Expatriates and Diaspora Jews.

Related article: The Great Absentee-Ballot Debate

Love of the Land: Manhigut Yehudit's Ideas Going Mainstream

RubinReports: The Obama Administration's Three Gambles on Iran Which It's Sure to Lose

The Obama Administration's Three Gambles on Iran Which It's Sure to Lose

Please subscribe. The national interests you save may be your own

By Barry Rubin

Two articles today are especially worthy of attention. The Washington Post has a piece about how Iran has been running into technical troubles in building nuclear weapons. This is the kind of thing Israeli analysts have known about for years. Since it is out in public now, please note that the idea that Iran is about to get weapons in the next few months has been often exaggerated. But we are talking about, say, two years roughly, and some more time before they could deliver them by missiles.

More immediately, following up on its editorial, the New York Times has an article, “Obama Takes Several Gambles in Bid to Defuse Nuclear Standoff With Iran,” which is not bad as such but somewhat detached from reality. Indeed, it could have been written six months ago in many respects. It is also interesting to note how on each point the article partly misses the point. Always keep in mind that they way things are worded, defined, and argued reflects the thinking of the foreign policy elite including the government itself.

Basically, the article says that the Obama administration is taking three gambles.

First, the belief that it can get through stronger sanctions, “that are strong enough to convince Iran’s divided leadership that its nuclear ambitions are not worth the price.”

The article doesn’t mention that the administration’s own starting point—even before having to water down sanctions with concessions to get support from others!—is too weak to convince Iran’s leadership to back down. That’s pretty significant.

[Yes, the administration has just put on some new sanctions. If you are a high-ranking official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--which is seeking to spread terrorism and Islamist revolution and shouts "Death to America" every day--it will be harder to do business in the United States. That's going to scare them?]

The article continues: “for Mr. Obama, that effort is complicated by the fear that sanctions could crush a resilient antigovernment movement that appears on the verge of taking to the streets again.”

There are circumstances where such concerns would be valid but this isn’t one of them.

Think about it. If Iran does get nuclear weapons it will greatly strengthen the regime at home for several reasons: hysterical enthusiasm at Iran becoming a great power; a show that the regime can easily defy the world (so how can any opposition challenge such a powerful and confident state?); and international gains that will produce material benefits at home. Therefore, if sanctions are too weak it will ensure that the antigovernment movement will be crushed in the not-distant future.

Moreover, those who hate the regime already hate it. They aren’t going to change their mind because America is “bullying” the mullahs. True, in the Arabic-speaking world the idea of rallying around the dictator in the face of foreign pressure is a real possibility. But Iranian history is different. It has never had a strong coherent nationalism and this regime has not ruled on a nationalist basis (though it has used such appeals at times, as in Iran's war against Iraq).

To be frank, Iran has more of a tradition of deserting to make a deal with powerful foreigners. Nobody knew that better, incidentally, than the leader of the Islamist revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and he talked about it a lot. Before the seizure of the U.S. embassy in 1979, Iranians were lining up there to ask for visas and to seek support in overthrowing the regime. That’s one of the main reasons the government backed the takeover.

Clearly, Iranians don’t want the United States to invade their country or even attack it militarily (though more than you might think wouldn’t mind so much). But put pressure on that weakens the regime? That’s a different matter.

The second gamble is that he will win over China, which even the Times sees as unlikely. For some peculiar reason they don’t mention Russia which is also a problem. By the way, note that through its friends in Hizballah who are part of Lebanon’s government, Iran now has a foothold in the UN Security Council since Beirut is a member there.

The third gamble is to stop Israel from attacking. This is silly since Israel won’t attack unless Iran is on the verge of getting deliverable nuclear weapons by which time it would be clear that the Obama administration had failed. Moreover, Israel is going to give every chance for sanctions and diplomacy to succeed, both because it would prefer not to attack and to “subvert” these efforts would sabotage Israel’s support in the West, especially the United States.

It is amazing how hard it is for Western elites to understand Israeli interests and policies, perhaps because the mythology is piled higher than a February snowstorm in Washington.

So here we have a trio of straw men. Here’s the real gamble: expecting to achieve anything without strong sanctions (why doesn’t the Times ever mention Congress’s proposal of a refined oil products cut-off which would be far more effective?), building a strong international coalition against the ambitions of the Iran-led Islamist alliance, making a credible threat of toughness, and doing a lot more to support Iran’s opposition.

Here's an idea: since it is obvious that the administration policy is going to fail, why wait for a year to find that out?

There are two ways to look at it this administration strategy as a gamble: Either this is a gamble that cannot win or the Obama administration is gambling with the future of the Middle East and the survival of some very basic U.S. interests.

RubinReports: The Obama Administration's Three Gambles on Iran Which It's Sure to Lose

RubinReports: The Reactionary Nature of "Progressive" Ideology: A Comparison with the Sixteenth Century

The Reactionary Nature of "Progressive" Ideology: A Comparison with the Sixteenth Century

Subscribe and save yourself lots of clicking time!

By Barry Rubin

Michel de Montaigne was a sixteenth-century French philosopher, the forerunner of many modern ideas. During his time, one of the most important debates was between those who argued that monarchy was divinely endowed and those who favored the people having sovereignty.

Being a man who didn’t like absolute rules, Montaigne wrote the following:

“The most excellent and best regime for any nation is that under which it has maintained itself. Its essential form and utility depends on usage. We are easily displeased with the system we have, but all the same I hold that it is wicked and stupid to wish for the rule of the few in a democracy or in a monarchy, another kind of regime. ”

At the time, this was a status quo viewpoint of course. In effect it meant that the existing democracies—Great Britain and the Netherlands—should remain that way and all other societies should remain monarchies. From today’s perspective we can see this as a multicultural and Politically Correct viewpoint: everybody’s system is well-suited for them and it is right that it remain in effect.

Note, by the way, that Montaigne did not talk about overthrowing anyone else’s system. He merely said that no one should want to change their own system or wish (merely hope for or believe it would be a good thing) if others changed their system. Elsewhere, he wrote--something very enlightened for his time--that all societies elsewhere in the world had beliefs properly suited for them and of equal value to those held by Europeans.

Yet looking back four centuries we can see the huge flaw in his thinking. Due to internal development or international factors, many societies have changed their system, including France itself, as well as Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, and many other places in the world. If the traditional system was the best, this raises two issues:

--Why did it change? Is the development from autocratic dictatorship, rule by the few, to democracy a step forward in history, a reversible mistake, or a mere way-station on the way to some "higher" form of dictatorship? Up until quite recently, many people in the West thought it was an error or an interim stage. In the Third World, many still do.

--Why was the change from monarchy to republic almost always an improvement in terms of social progress and the well-being of the great majority, at least after the latter had sufficient time to become stabilized?

These are the things that the last 300 years of history ultimately taught people. In other words, we recognize that change is a law of history even for the most seemingly entrenched systems. We also recognize that a specific direction of change from a society which is in effect a dictatorship or at least a highly centralized state which overwhelms social, economic, religious, intellectual life to one that is a limited-government democratic republic—is a step forward.

A growth in liberty, the development of a reasonably regulated--but not strangled--free enterprise economic system, and a representative form of government is better than a dictatorship by a king, oligarchy, political party, ideology, those who claim to speak for God, or a supposedly well-meaning group of bureaucrats and politicians.

Not long ago, the previous paragraph would have been pretty uncontroversial. Today, however, such talk is close to forbidden. Once again we are told that all people have a culture, society, and political structure that is appropriate for them and it should remain that way forever. In contrast to Montaigne’s neutrality, but in accord with the reactionaries of his time, we are told that one cannot say that democracy is a better system or that it represents progress in human civilization.

Oh, by the way, there used to be a word for those who believed the ideas contained in that previous paragraph celebrating the growth of liberty. The word was “liberal”

Even almost all of those we call “conservative” today have accepted the basic ideas of historic liberalism. The debate between liberals and conservatives today is one over the details of how to balance between liberty and law, between laissez-faire and regulation. These issues are quite passionate and important in their own right but fall below the level of advocating an entirely different system or public philosophy.

In contrast, the concept of Politically Correct, multiculturalism, and “progressive” ideology is a reactionary step backward. Instead of the divine rights of kings, this approach enthrones the absolute correctness of its own ideas which become unquestionable and thus beyond questioning. Like sixteenth-century reactionaries, they want to limit free speech and turn what should be independent institutions into choruses of consensus.

Like the worst opponents of freedom in the sixteenth century, they want to rationalize freezing most of the world into systems which in non-technological ways have more in common with the sixteenth-century West, in which a centralized states dominates society and chooses what liberties to give its citizens, than with the modern world. Like the neo-medieval thinkers of that earlier era, they want to substitute a predetermined set of ideas for logical processes and the scientific method.

Indeed, excluding the extremes, most contemporary Western conservatives are far closer to liberalism than those seeking to hijack that doctrine today. Nothing could be more reactionary from the standpoint of three centuries of democratic liberalism than "progressive," Politically Correct ideology and practice.

RubinReports: The Reactionary Nature of "Progressive" Ideology: A Comparison with the Sixteenth Century