New Job Market For Orthodox Jewish Women In Kosher Supervision

Jewish Blogmeister has an interesting post on the developing job market for Orthodox Jewish women in kosher supervision as Mashgichim:

Orthodox Jewish Women generally have different considerations to take into account when seeking a career or employment. Many will try to find jobs that are family friendly, allowing them time to care of their children and as well as help with religious holiday preparations. For the longest time these jobs examples would be wig stylist, teachers and more recently speech therapy, OT, PT etc.. A new job market is opening up that could prove to be another opportunity for Jewish Orthodox women: Kosher Supervisor AKA Mashgiach

Read the whole thing--including why women may do a better job in Hashgacha.

He links to an article on the website of The Jewish Federation of the Berkshires:

As the kosher food industry continues to swell, so does the number of female kosher supervisors. And now they are receiving professional recognition.

The first known training course for mashgichot will be held this fall in Baltimore. Organized by the Star-K kosher certification agency, the weeklong seminar is aimed at women supervisors in the food service industry. It will include an overview of proper procedures, an analysis of kosher laws and policies, and field trips to working kitchens.

Mashgichim have enjoyed this kind of professional support for years, but women have had to train themselves.

The program is aimed at women who are already mashgichot:

WOMEN'S MASHGICHA CONFERENCE

Women’s Mashgicha Conference -- Star-K is planning a two-day training program in our corporate office for women currently employed as mashgichos worldwide. The curriculum will include kashrus procedures, insect checking and visits to food service establishments. This program is tentatively scheduled for Fall 2009, if there is sufficient interest. Please contact our office at 410-484-4110 or star-k@star-k.org.

Though the course is designed for women already in the field, it is an indication of the growing number of women who are involved in kosher supervision--and the respect they get for their work.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Kosher Supervision.

If Obama Is Such A Fan Of The New Deal, He Should Leave Israeli Settlements Alone

When not being compared to Lincoln, Obama is often compared to FDR:

President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives – education, energy, health care –back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR's New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades. [emphasis added]

That being the case, one would think that he would see how the Israeli settlements have a 'New Deal' effect and leave matters be--because among those who are most eager to build those settlements are Palestinian Arabs:

The last thing that Abu Mohammed al-Najjar wants is for Israel to succumb to US and European pressure and halt construction in the West Bank settlements.

As far as the 58-year-old laborer is concerned, freezing the construction would be a disaster not only for him and his family, but for thousands of other Palestinians working in various settlements in the West Bank.

Of course, this does not mean that they support Israel's policy of construction in the settlements. But for them, it's simply a matter of being able to support their families.

And this is no small part of the Palestinian economy either:

The phenomenon of Palestinians building new homes for Jewish settlers is not new. In fact, Palestinian laborers have been working in the construction business from the first day the settlements began in the West Bank.

Today, Palestinian Authority officials estimate, more than 12,000 Palestinians are employed by both Jewish and Arab contractors building new homes in the settlements.

The most interesting part of the story is that the Palestinian leaders understand the situation better than Obama. While we read stories about Palestinians accused as collaborators with Israel being tortured or killed, Palestinian Arab who work on building Israeli settlements are allowed to do so:

He and most of the laborers interviewed by the Post over the past week said they had never come under pressure from fellow Palestinians to stay away from work in the settlements.

"If they want us to leave our work, they should offer us an alternative," Abu Sharikheh said. "We don't come to work in the settlements for ideological reasons or because we support the settlement movement. We come here because our Palestinian and Arab governments haven't done anything to provide us with better jobs."

Back in Ma'aleh Adumim, most of the Palestinian laborers said they had no problem revealing their identities.

"We're not doing anything wrong," explained Ibrahim Abu Tair, a 42-year-old father of eight from the village of Um Tuba, southwest of Jerusalem. "We're not collaborators and we're not terrorists. We just want to work."

He said that during the first intifada, which began at the end of 1987, some Palestinian groups tried to stop Palestinians from heading to work in the settlements.

"In the beginning there were threats and physical assaults on some workers," he noted. "But the leaders of the intifada later realized that depriving the laborers of their livelihood would have a boomerang effect on the Palestinians. That's why they allowed the workers to go to the settlements."

Even today the PA does not object to Palestinians working in settlements, although its representatives say they would like to see the Palestinians work elsewhere.

"We can't tell the workers to stay at home without providing them with solutions," admitted a Palestinian official in Ramallah. "We're talking about thousands of families in the West Bank that rely on this work as their sole source of income."

Economics is a great equalizer, and an indication that Netanyahu's statements about the priority of economic rehabilitation over creating a second Palestinian state makes sense--especially considering that some of those Palestinian workers are members of Hamas:

He [Jawdat Uwaisat] added that even Palestinians known as supporters of Hamas and Islamic Jihad are employed as construction workers in settlements.

"I know some people from Hamas who work as construction laborers in Ariel," he said. "When people want to feed their children, they don't think twice."

While most of the laborers told the Post that they were opposed to the settlements, they nevertheless stressed that they would continue to show up for work every day.

Of course, the fact that the job pays well helps:

He said that he and his colleagues working for Israelis earn almost three times what they would receive doing the same work for Palestinian construction companies.

"The Palestinian employers pay us NIS 100 to NIS 150 a day," Uwaisat said. "The Israeli companies, by contrast, pay NIS 350 to NIS 450 a day. That's why many of us prefer to work for Israeli companies, even if the construction is in the settlements."

Pursuing Obama's demand for freezing the settlements will only do to the Palestinian economy what is already being done to the economy in the US.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israeli Settlements.

Obama Is Not First President To Test His 'Meddle' In Israel

Many have commented on the fact that as opposed to his laid-back policy towards Iran in the aftermath of the elections there, Obama exhibits no such hesitation when it comes to Israel.

However, truth be told--Obama is not the first to try to manipulate Israeli affairs. Actually, while Obama is trying to pressure Israel to freeze the settlements, there is no more talk about how Obama is trying to manipulate Israeli politics and force the fall of Netanyahu's coalition.

The same came not be said of previous US presidents.

Caroline Glick traces the history of US Presidents who meddled in Israeli affairs and lists instances of interference to varying degrees.

o George H. W. Bush helped get Yitzhak Rabin elected 1992 by undermining Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir--refusing to provide Israel with $10 billion in loan guarantees to enable the absorption of one million Jews from the former Soviet Union.

o In 1996, Bill Clinton came to Israel and actively campaigned for Peres, but in the end it was the Palestinian terrorism that instead secured Netanyahu's win over Peres.

o In the 1999 elections, Clinton sent Bob Schrum, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg to Israel to manage Barak's campaign against Netanyahu.

o And the Bush administration, after refraining from getting involved in the Israeli elections in 2001 and 2003:

made it self-evident that it wants a Kadima victory and is willing to do a great deal to ensure that such a victory comes about. Since Sharon's second stroke two weeks ago, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have made it clear that in Sharon's absence they want Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to form the next government.

Not unexpectedly, US leaders do not have a monopoly on interfering in Israel's internal affairs.

In an article in 2002, Caroline Glick wrote about--

o money that the EU gave to Yossi Beilin's Economic Cooperation Foundation

o money that the EU gave to Rabbis for Human Rights, "which recently participated in organizing delegations of foreign activists who were brought here to stand in front of IDF tanks and attempt to force their way through IDF roadblocks."

o the Norwegian government being one of the chief contributors to the Shimon Peres Center for Peace, whose operation is the main subject of Glick's article.

And the European meddling continues--these days even French President Sarkozy can't resist getting in his two cents:

The French president reportedly told Netanyahu that while he usually scheduled talks with Israel's top foreign envoys on visit to Paris he could not bring himself to meet with Lieberman. According to Channel Two, this statement was accompanied by disparaging hand gestures.

Sarkozy then advised Netanyahu to fire Lieberman and bring former foreign minister Tzipi Livni back into the coalition, according to the report. [emphasis added]

Meanwhile, Obama is trying his luck in Honduras. After commenting on the legality of Israel's settlements, Obama is now applying his knowledge of international law to Honduras. Allahpundit gives the background:

In a nutshell, Zelaya wanted another term as president so he decided to hold a popular referendum on whether he should be eligible. Minor problem: The Honduran constitution can’t be amended by popular referendum so the country’s supreme court ordered the vote canceled. Zelaya tried to go ahead with it anyway. Literally every other arm of the Honduran government — judiciary, legislature, military — was against him, to the point where the troops who arrested him this morning were evidently acting on a court order. Why such strong, unified opposition? According to one retired Honduran general cited by Fausta, it’s because Zelaya’s a Chavez stooge and him staying on would mean “Chavez would eventually be running Honduras by proxy.” [emphasis added]

Despite the backing of that country's supreme court and congress, Obama has insisted that the coup is illegal--reminiscent of the US position on the settlements, which also have the backing of legal experts.

Allahpundit suggests a reason for Obama's insistence that the Honduras coup is not legal

I can’t see any reason for a strong reaction from the United States here except as a way for The One to prove he’s different from all the other yanqui presidents in the past.

Now that Obama has strengthened ties with the Arab world by showing his willingness to pressure Israel, is he now working on strengthening US ties with Chavez and his friends in Central America ?

Who's next--Taiwan?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Honduras.

In 2005, Daniel Kurtzer Admitted There Was An Agreement On Settlements

In an op-ed in The Washington Post on June 14th, Daniel Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel wrote in The Settlement Facts

Today, Israel maintains that three events -- namely, draft understandings discussed in 2003 between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley; President George W. Bush's April 14, 2004, letter to Sharon; and an April 14 letter from Sharon adviser Dov Weissglas to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- constitute a formal understanding in which the United States accepted continuing Israeli building within the "construction line" of settlements. The problem is that there was no such understanding. [emphasis added]

In regards to President Bush's letter, Kurtzer explains:

President Bush's 2004 letter conveyed U.S. support of an agreed outcome of negotiations in which Israel would retain "existing major Israeli population centers" in the West Bank "on the basis of mutually agreed changes . . . ." One of the key provisions of this letter was that U.S. support for Israel's retaining some settlements was predicated on there being an "agreed outcome" of negotiations. Despite Israel's contention that this letter allowed it to continue building in the large settlement blocs of Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion, the letter did not convey any U.S. support for or understanding of Israeli settlement activities in these or other areas in the run-up to a peace agreement. [emphasis added]

That is now. But back on March 25, 2005--in an interview with Israel Television Channel Ten while he was ambassador--Kurtzer said something different:

QUESTION: So President Bush is willing to leave settlement blocs in Israeli sovereignty in the future agreement just as Clinton was?

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: He said it clearly in the letter of last April - I can
say it again to the people of Israel. The President remains committed to
what he said in that letter: That in a negotiation on final status, the
outcome is going to mean that Israeli major population areas in our view
should remain within the State of Israel....

I believe there is full understanding between the Prime Minister and the
President and between the Prime Minister's office and his advisors and the
President's office and the President's advisors. Our discussions with the
Prime Minister, with Dov Weissglas, Shalom Turgeman, with all of the
officials who are associated with the Prime Minister's office have been very
clear and quite specific and that is what allowed us last April to reach a
very specific understanding that was then incorporated in a letter that the
President signed and was able to make public. So, I do not believe there are
any misunderstandings between us.

QUESTION: So, when Dov Weissglas says it is about Maale Adumim, about Ariel,
about all the big settlement blocs, it is okay, you stand behind this thing
he said.

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: The Government of Israel is going to make its
statements, the American government will make its statements. When we reach
understandings as we do have understandings, these are incorporated in
documents such as this letter. That letter remains the President's policy,
unquestionably.

... I think it is critically important, particularly now, the Prime Minister
is about to go to Washington again, to understand that the United States and
Israel do not have misunderstandings with respect to U.S. commitments. Those
commitments are very, very firm with respect to these Israeli major
population centers, our expectation that Israel is not going to be going
back to the 1967 lines. This is the President's policy. This President has
been very determined in having consistent and sure policy throughout his
time in office. That is the reality, that is the truth.

Steve Rosen writes in Obama Mideast Monitor about the background to the conflicting op-eds by Elliott Abrams and Daniel Kurtzer. Rosen notes that Kurtzer--

confirmed to Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post in April 2008, that he had opposed accepting an April 2004 letter from Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weissglas, reconfirming U.S.-Israeli understandings that restrictions on the growth of settlements would be made "within the agreed principles of settlement activities," which would include "a better definition of the construction line of settlements" on the West Bank. Weissglas also confirmed that a U.S.-Israeli team would "jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements." Kessler reported, "Daniel Kurtzer, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said he argued at the time against accepting the Weissglas letter. 'I thought it was a really bad idea,' he said. 'It would legitimize the settlements, and it gave them a blank check.' But the White House did accept the Weissglas letter. In the end, Kurtzer said the White House never followed up with the plan to define construction lines. 'Washington lost interest in it when it became clear it would not be easy to do,' he said.

So these dueling op-eds by Kurtzer and Abrams are a continuation of a policy war withing the Bush Administration, a war that Kurtzer lost at the time but is trying to win now. [emphasis added]

The Obama administration really should heed the advice of the Washington Post this morning, and stop pushing on the issue of the settlements. At the very least, it will allow the administration to stop contradicting itself.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israeli Settlements and Daniel Kurtzer.

Washington Post: Forget About The Settlement Freeze

The Washington Post has come out--strongly--against the freezing of Israeli settlements. Interestingly, legal reasons are not mentioned. Instead, Jackson Diehl attacks the US insistence on a freeze based on pragmatic reasons. Bottom line, the idea is a loser:

This absolutist position is a loser for three reasons. First, it has allowed Palestinian and Arab leaders to withhold the steps they were asked for; they claim to be waiting for the settlement "freeze" even as they quietly savor a rare public battle between Israel and the United States. Second, the administration's objective -- whatever its merits -- is unobtainable. No Israeli government has ever agreed to an unconditional freeze, and no coalition could be assembled from the current parliament to impose one.

Finally, the extraction of a freeze from Netanyahu is, as a practical matter, unnecessary. While further settlement expansion needs to be curbed, both the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments have gone along with previous U.S.-Israeli deals by which construction was to be limited to inside the periphery of settlements near Israel -- since everyone knows those areas will be annexed to Israel in a final settlement. Before the 2007 Annapolis peace conference organized by the Bush administration, Saudi Arabia and other Arab participants agreed to what one former senior official called "the Google Earth test"; if the settlements did not visibly expand, that was good enough.

According to Diehl, the policy made sense at first in order to establish believability with the Arab world by applying pressure on Israel. But having done that, there is nothing to gain by continuing to push the issue--and the crisis in Iran is Obama's opportunity to move away from that issue. Even if, instead of dropping the issue altogether, some sort of compromise is reached with Netanyahu, Obama now risks looking like he caved.

Diehl concludes:

The best course nevertheless lies in striking a quick deal with the left-leaning Barak this week under cover of the tumult in Tehran. The administration could then return to doing what it intended to do all along: press Palestinians as well as Israelis, friendly Arab governments and not-so-friendly Iranian clients such as Syria to take tangible steps toward a regional settlement. Such movement would be the perfect complement to the cause of change in Iran; how foolish it would be to squander it over a handful of Israeli apartment houses.

Read the whole thing.

Of course, whether Obama intended all along to press Abbas and the PA as well remains to be seen. Diehl himself makes mention of "the disarray of the Palestinian camp." But the fact remains that this editorial is important for taking a stand against Obama.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Israeli Settlements.

Who Is In Breach Of International Law: Israel--Or The US?

Caroline Glick makes a compelling case that not only is Israel not in breach of signed agreements--or international law--on the issue of settlements, the US is breach of both international and domestic law.

On the issue of Israeli settlements and international law, Glick makes a number of points:

• Israel has never signed an agreement whereby a Jewish community can be characterized as "illegal," and therefore has no legal obligation to forbid their expansion
  
  
• Both former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chief of staff Dov Weisglass and former president George W. Bush's deputy national security adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams have gone on record that when Sharon agreed to limit the building of Jewish communities in the West Bank--not including Jerusalem--in accordance with the Road Map, he did so based on explicit understandings with the Bush administration.
  
  
• The approval of the Road Map was a cabinet decision--not an international agreement. Therefore, the Israeli government has no legal obligation to advance it, and can legally abrogate Israel's acceptance of the Road Map by calling for another vote.
  
  
• The Road Map does not have the force of international law: Glick writes "Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem."
  
  
• As a signatory to the 1976 International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits all forms of discrimination against people on the basis of religion and nationality, Israel cannot discriminate specifically against Jews who wish to build homes on legally controlled lands in Judea and Samaria. The convention is a binding treaty, which trumps the Road Map, which is non-binding.
  
  
• In response to the claim that Jewish communities located beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal because of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its population to the occupied territory--there has long been a dispute among legal authorities if this applies to the West Bank. Even assuming that it is applicable, Prof. Avi Bell from Bar-Ilan University Law School explains that "The Fourth Geneva Convention does not purport to limit in any way what individual Jews may or may not do on their legally held property or where they may or may not choose to live."

On the other hand, Caroline Glick demonstrates how the policy of the Obama administration towards the Palestinian Arabs is itself in violation of both international and domestic US law.

The key is the UN Security Council binding Resolution 1373, passed by authority of Chapter VII. It commits all UN member states:

• to "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts."
  
  
• to "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts or provide safe haven" to those that do.

In light of the stipulations of UN Resolution 1373, a number of actions of the Obama administration become questionable according to international law:

• In 1995, the US State Department put Hamas on its list of terrorist groups--and the actions taken by the Obama administration thus put the US in breach of both international and US law. Since the US has or is in the process of transferring $300 million to Gaza through USAID, which based on past experience has ended up in the hands of Hamas--the transfer of these funds constitute indirect assistance to Hamas and are prohibited by Resolution 1373 and US law.
  
  
• The US pressure on Israel to open passages between it and Gaza and limit travel restrictions--putting Israel at risk of facilitating the movement of Hamas terrorists and thereby supporting them is also a breach of Resolution 1373, which states that all states must "prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls."
  
  
• The US is pressuring Israel to allow cement to be imported into Gaza to rebuild the Hamas infrastructure and transfer money into Hamas-controlled banks while the Obama administration has pledged $900 million to rebuild Gaza. In addition, Dan Diker reported in a study published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad has admitted that the US-financed PA continues to pay the salaries of Hamas terrorists. All of this is in violation of Resolution 1373 which requires all states to "ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetuation of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice."
  
  
• Obama's apparent attempt to facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian government including Hamas legitimizes that terrorist group and would both aid a designated terrorist organization and help provide it with a safe haven, in violation of Resolution 1373
  
  
• By meeting with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is suspected of providing material support to Hizbullah--a designated terrorist organization, Obama was arguably illegally providing indirect assistance to Hizbullah, which is in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
  
  
• US military assistance to the Lebanese military, which has been shown to be influenced by Hizbullah is also possibly in breach of Resolution 1373 and US law.
  
  
• Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook wrote in The Jerusalem Post last month that the US is financing the construction of a Palestinian computer center--which is named for Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 bus bombing on Israel's coastal highway in which 37 civilians, including 12 children and US citizen Gail Rubin, were murdered--yet the 2008 US Foreign Operations Bill bars US assistance to the Palestinians from being used "for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit or have committed acts of terrorism."

Glick concludes:

Obama, the former law professor, never tires of invoking international law. And yet, when one considers his policies toward Israel on the one hand, and his policies toward illegal terrorist organizations on the other, it is clear that Obama's respect for international law is mere rhetoric. True champions of law in both Israel and the US should demand an end to his administration's contempt for the US's actual - rather than imaginary - legal obligations.

Read the whole thing.

It is time to hold Obama accountable for his claims about international law.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and International Law.

Iran: The Beginning Of Radical Islam--And Its End?

In For Radical Islam, the End Begins, Joshua Muravchik finds that current events were foreshadowed by a poll taken last year:

Last year, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that from 2002 to 2008, the proportion of respondents saying that suicide bombing was sometimes or often justified dropped from 74 percent to 32 percent in Lebanon, from 33 percent to 5 percent in Pakistan, from 43 percent to 25 percent in Jordan and from 26 percent to 11 percent in Indonesia. As a food stand operator in Jakarta put it: "People are less supportive of terrorist attacks because we know what terrorism does, we're afraid of attacks."

Muravchik sees the results of the poll reflected in events that even predate the poll--starting with Morocco and Jordan in 2007, Pakistan in 2008 and then this year in the elections in Indonesia, Kuwait and of course Lebanon.

So how does Iran compare--especially in light of the increasing control that the Iranian regime has been able to exercise over the protests? Muravchik writes that success is not measured only in terms of continued protests:

Even if the Iranian regime succeeds in suppressing the protests and imposes the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by force of bullets, mass arrests and hired thugs, it will have forfeited its legitimacy, which has always rested on an element of consent as well as coercion. Most Iranians revered Ayatollah Khomeini, but when his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared the election results settled, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets, deriding his anointed candidate with chants of "Death to the dictator!"

"Even if they manage to hang on for a month or a couple of years, they've shed the blood of their people," says Egyptian publisher and columnist Hisham Kassem. "It's over."

The downfall or discrediting of the regime in Tehran would deal a body blow to global Islamism which, despite its deep intellectual roots, first achieved real influence politically with the Iranian revolution of 1979. And it would also represent just the most recent -- and most dramatic -- in a string of setbacks for radical Islam. Election outcomes over the past two years have completely undone the momentum that Islamists had achieved with their strong showing at the polls in Egypt in 2005 and Palestine in 2006.

Read the whole thing.

That of course is an ambitious goal, and one that is not even close to being achieved. Nevertheless, it is a goal that is worth the attention of the West--more so than how many children Israelis are allowed to have in the settlements.

Technorati Tag: Iran and Islam.

Protests In Iran Continue To Ebb And Flow, But Where's Mousavi? (3 Updates)

Gateway Pundit continues to be one of the best aggregators of news about the protests in Iran. Today, he has a post about more protests in Iran.

This comes as the Iranian regime has taken ever harsher measures to take the steam out of the protests:

The Iranian government has seized and detained several hundred activists, journalists and students across the nation, in one of the most extensive crackdowns on key dissidents since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Even as unprecedented protests broke out on the streets after the June 12 disputed presidential election, the most stinging backlash from authorities has come away from the crowds through roundups and targeted arrests, according to witnesses and human rights organizations. They say plainclothes security agents have also put dozens of the country's most experienced pro-reform leaders behind bars.

Apparently, in addition to the protesters themselves, Mousavi has been targeted and has been effectively muzzled:

[Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami's] call for merciless retribution for those who stirred up Iran’s largest wave of dissent since the 1979 Islamic Revolution came as Mir Hossein Mousavi, the nation’s increasingly isolated opposition leader, has been under heavy pressure to give up his fight and slipped even further from view.

Mousavi said he would seek official permission for any future rallies, effectively ending his role in street protests organized by supporters who insist he — not hard-line incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — won the June 12 election. And an aide said Mousavi’s Web site, his primary means of staying in touch with supporters, was taken down by unknown hackers.

...Mousavi, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals to supporters, asking them not to break the law while pledging not to drop his challenge.

...Iranian officials have seized documents and computers from a political party that had backed opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi in the June 12 presidential election, a newspaper reported on Saturday, AFP reported.

...Mousavi’s campaign manager Ghorban Behzadian-Nejad has also been detained since Wednesday, the website of Etemad Melli party said. [emphasis added]

And yet, despite the obvious dangers, the protests continue--albeit on a smaller scale. Gateway Pundit reports that today there was a protest of some 7,000 in Tehran [note: Al Jazeera says its 3,000]--and it was brutally put down.

Gateway Pundit also notes reports of other 6 separate protests.

Read his entire post.

Ideally, we all wanted a quick definitive result from the protests--an unrealistic expectation. The explosion of protests is no more definitive than the current success of the regime in curtailing them.

As Instapundit keeps pointing out: Democratization is a process, not an event.

Ed Morrissey writes:

The mullahs may have momentarily succeeded in repressing the street demonstrations and open defiance of the regime, but they lost their legitimacy over the last two weeks, and they know it. That’s why they’re trying so desperately to frame the Brits for the protests [link], in an attempt to discredit them. But when millions of people face off against the armed forces of a dictatorship, it’s usually at least the beginning of the end for the tyrants. And as we’ve been saying, this stopped being about Mousavi after the first few days of the crisis.

This is still not over.

UPDATE: In Mousavi, Out--Abe Greenwald writes about what the next step needs to be:

With the protests breaking away from the personality of Mousavi and with Mousavi’s getting reabsorbed into the corrupt theocracy, it’s more important than ever that the U.S. make clear its support for Iran’s citizens. We are, after all, aligned with them against Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. This should now be easier for our president to articulate, as it no longer means endorsing Mousavi by default

UPDATE II: And Jennifer Rubin has a suggestion, if Obama is ready to go beyond just words:

There is a petroleum sanctions measure gaining sponsors in Congress. And now might be a good time to assess whether Iran is in compliance with those international norms the president is fond of citing. If it is not, is he prepared to take economic and diplomatic action against the mullahs?

UPDATE III: Here's another idea:

A bipartisan pair of senators is pushing for international restrictions on electronic equipment sold to Iran, citing reports that the government has monitored citizens’ communications after the country’s disputed elections.

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Friday called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to request that the European Union curb all telecommunications equipment German and Finnish companies, Siemens and Nokia, sell to Iran.

So what are we waiting for?!

Technorati Tag: Iran Election and Mousavi.

Demilitarized State? Palestinian State vs. Pre-WWII Germany

In Demilitarized Palestinian State?, Prof. MK Arieh Eldad reacts to Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech--specifically Netanyahu's acceptance of the two-state solution that would result in a Palestinian state. Bibi accepted the idea conditionally, one of the conditions being that the state would be demilitarized.

Prof. Eldad does not find this reassuring:

The more I listened to this and said to myself that there is no such thing, I was reminded of something quite bothersome. Was there once such a state? And then one of my friends reminded me there had been.

"It will be forbidden to Germany to maintain or build fortifications... in this territory (West of the Rhine).... It is forbidden for Germany to maintain an army.... the German army will not include more than seven infantry divisions.... It is forbidden for Germany to import or export tanks or any other military hardware.... The German naval forces will be limited and are not to include submarines. The armed forces of Germany will not include any air forces.... In the political realm, Germany is forbidden to enter into any treaty with Austria."

So it was written and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, as part of the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. Essentially, Germany became a demilitarized state and was also limited from a political perspective.

So what happened? Did the "demilitarized" status prevent the Second World War and, worst of all, the destruction of European Jewry?

By 1922, an agreement between Russia and Germany had been signed in the Italian city of Rapallo. The agreement was open and met the terms of the Versailles Treaty, but the conference that prepared it was secret; and there, Soviet Russia and Germany agreed on joint establishment of weapons factories, poison gas and ammunition. German army officers were sent to Russia to be trained in the use of weapons that were forbidden to be maintained in Germany. In Germany, civilian factories were refurbished into arms factories, funded, as it were, by private individuals, not the state.

In a previous post, I wrote about an article by Prof. Louis Rene Beres that explained that there is no way to legally enforce the demilitarization of a Palestinian state--even if they agree to it beforehand.

Prof. Eldad points out that there is no way to prevent the demilitarization of a Palestinian state politically either:

The lesson being that there is no political power that can prevent a sovereign state from doing whatever it wants.

Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle.

Netanyahu knows that if ever a Palestinian state should, Heaven forbid, be established, Israel will not be able to declare war on it if it should choose, for instance, to sign an international tourism agreement with Cyprus or a transfer-of-technology agreement with Iran. If pipes are manufactured in Tulkarm, Israel will not be able to start a war that can be justified in the eyes of the world if steel cutters turn the pipes into Kassam rockets. Since nothing other than Israeli force could possibly preserve demilitarization, Netanyahu is deceiving the people of Israel and promising them something that cannot be delivered.

He concludes:

But all of the above is not the main thing. The main thing is that Netanyahu has recognized the right of Arabs to establish a sovereign state in our homeland. None of his conditions and reservations can hide this abomination. Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle and all that is left to do is argue over the price.

Is Netanyahu counting on the conditions he stated to stall movement towards the two-state solution he has now accepted? If so, how long till the Palestinian Arabs realize the conditions are meaningless and call his bluff?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Two State Solution.

Video: Suspected Hizbullah Collaborator: There Is No 'Palestinian Nation'

Prof MK Arieh Eldad writes:

...these words were spoken by former MK Dr. Azmi Bishara in an interview with Yaron London several years ago. Bishara is a leader of Israeli Arab citizens who openly identify with the enemy, and who was forced to flee Israel under suspicion of aiding Hizbullah in wartime.

"I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."

Somebody tell Obama.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestine and Azmi Bishara.

It's Not Over: After A Lull, Mousavi Comes Out Swinging (Updated)

After indications that the protests were lessening, Mousavi speaks out:

After days of relative quiet, the candidate defeated in Iran's disputed presidential election launched a broadside Thursday against the nation's leadership, an indication that the country's political rift is far from over.

In his statement, Mir-Hossein Mousavi issued a rare attack on supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accusing him of not acting in the interests of the country, and said Iran had suffered a dramatic change for the worse.

Mousavi's forceful remarks appeared to show that the former prime minister is willing to risk his standing as a pillar of the Islamic Republic to take on Iran's powerful leadership. And they seemed aimed at securing his position at the head of a broad movement seeking change.

He also slammed state-controlled broadcasters, which have intensified a media blitz against him and his supporters with allegations that unrest over the June 12 election was instigated by Iran's international foes. And he pledged to pursue his quest to have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection annulled.

What is new in Mousavi's statement is that beyond disputing the results of the election and making accusations of fraud--is that he is openly attacking Khamenei:

Though the cleric is usually considered beyond public reproach, Mousavi seemed more than willing to confront Khamenei, who broke with tradition by openly taking sides in factional political rows.

"The leadership's support to the government under normal circumstances is helpful," Mousavi said. "However, if the leadership and the president are the same, it will not be in the interests of the country."

He also challenged the fact that Khamenei, while insisting that those who question the vote results should pursue legal means of recourse, had closed off most avenues for doing that and shuttered news outlets critical of the election.

Read the whole thing.

Apparently Michael Ledeen's evaluation is correct:

Some are asking whether the insurrection/revolution is losing steam. It is a legitimate question, especially in a world of famously short attention spans. It does not apply to the fighters in Iran, for whom life is no longer doled out in six-minute bytes. For them, the big issue is winning, and the immediate issue is getting through the day. And then the night. They are looking for various ways of fighting, since direct confrontation, at least at the moment, has limited appeal. Thus we see the hit-and-run attacks about which Eli Lake wrote this morning in the Washington Times [link], and which the Guardian links to.

There are many things we do not see, and which we would not see even if the regime weren’t trying to isolate Iran from the world. We still don’t know whether, as widely rumored, Rafsanjani has obtained the signatures of many senior clerics, calling for either the replacement of Khamenei or the abolition of the position of supreme leader (which would be the end of the Islamic Republic). If he has such a document, what will he do with it? Hard to know or even to guess.

Mousavi: instead of shrinking into the background he is becoming more aggressive and more outspoken. And he is winning some important allies, such as Tehran mayor Qalibaf, who has come out for peaceful demonstrations.

At least in regards to that last point, we know that Ledeen is right.
So was Yogi Berra: It ain't over till it's over.

UPDATE: In its update for June 25, niacINsight reports that Congressman Eric Cantor is asking for hearings:

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi today asking for joint hearings on the situation in Iran.

I know that you share our deep concern about the growing violence and brutality in Iran. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the cleric-backed Iranian regime has decided to end the public demonstrations through violent oppression.

Today, I am asking you to call on House committees to hold joint hearings on the situation in Iran, the policies of the United States towards Iran, and any need for changes in our policy

Read the whole thing.
niacINsight has a copy of Cantor's letter [PDF]

Among the people Cantor wants to hear testimony from is Secretary of the Treasury Geithner on immediate economic sanctions that can be imposed on Iran.

If successful, Cantor will push the US beyond what many see as Obama's tepid response to events in Iran.

Technorati Tag: Iran Election and Mousavi.

Video: This Mac Takes Off--Literally

I am not a fan of Macintosh computers, but I definitely want one of these.
The video is in French, but it kind of speaks for itself.

Technorati Tag: Macintosh.

Director/Writer Of "The Stoning of Soraya M." Answers Questions On Facebook 4pm Today

From an email:

Dear Fans and Supporters:
We are pleased to announce a unique opportunity between the up-coming theatrical release of the The Stoning of Soraya M. and social media giant FACEBOOK- the first time a film has been featured in such a way on the site.

Please join us Thursday (6/25) at 4pm PST for this unprecedented event where writer/director Cyrus Nowrasteh will field YOUR questions regarding his latest film.

Based on a true story, The Stoning of Soraya M. stars Shohreh Aghdashloo in the heroic role of Zahra, an Iranian woman caught in a deadly conspiracy. When a journalist is stranded in her remote village, she takes a bold chance to reveal what the villagers will stop at nothing to keep hidden.

Please log onto: http://apps.facebook.com/spinnio/

RSVP on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=96252118100

We look forward to hearing from you!

The Official Movie Site: www.thestoning.com
Facebook: facebook.com/thestoningofsorayam
Twitter: Twitter.com/Mpowerpictures

Technorati Tag: The Stoning of Soraya M.

7 Things Obama Could Give Israel To Make It Willingly Freeze Settlements

In his post on the Encyclopaedia Britannica blog, Professor Mitchell Bard writes that if Obama is serious about the settlement freeze, he should use incentives instead of pressure. Briefly, here are the 7 suggestions Prof. Bard offers:

1) Set a deadline for eliminating Iran's nuclear facilities. If the U.S. takes out Iran's capability, then Israel has no more existential threat to worry about and does not have to take risks to do the job itself.

2) Sign a formal defense treaty with Israel.

3) Admit Israel to NATO.

4) Offer a generous compensation package to relocate settlers inside Israel.

5) Pressure the Arabs to purchase the land from the settlers.

6) Provide Israel with a large number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

7) Finance the Red-Dead water project, which involves building a canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea.

Read the details.

Of course, no one can seriously expect this to happen.

For Obama to offer a real incentive to Israel might ease Israel-US tensions, but would upset the Arabs--and upsetting Obama's plan to strengthen US-Arab relations.

But it does make a swell wishlist.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Settlements.

If Ahmadinejad Is Able To Put Down The Protests--This Is Why (3 Updates)

Is the Iran regime beginning to succeed in squelching the protests? That is the implication of Andrew Sullivan's post:

Despite the tweets below, so far there's no sign of the rally hoped for yesterday. It may be that the violence - and the ability of the junta to prevent any large crowds gathering - has prevented it from happening. The frequency of tweets has also decreased as the junta slowly strangles the ability of Iranians to communicate with one another

If the regime is successful, it will be because Ahmadinejad has put together an organization that would make Chicago politics proud:

Mr. Ahmadinejad has filled crucial ministries and other top posts with close friends and allies who have spread ideological and operational support for him nationwide. These analysts estimate that he has replaced 10,000 government employees to cement his loyalists through the bureaucracies, so that his allies run the organizations responsible for both the contested election returns and the official organs that have endorsed them.

“There is a whole political establishment that emerged with Ahmadinejad, which is now determined to hold on to power undemocratically,” said one American-based Iran analyst, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of his work in Iran. “Their ability to resist the outcome of the election means they have a broad base as a political establishment.” [emphasis added]

With his influence so firmly entrenched, Ahmadinejad is actually not that much different than any other dictator intent on holding onto power indefinitely:

Mr. Ahmadinejad has also changed all 30 of the country’s governors, all the city managers and even third- and fourth-level civil servants in important ministries like the Interior Ministry. It was Interior that announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won the June 12 election with just 5 percent of the votes counted, analysts pointed out, and it is the Intelligence Ministry that has been rounding up scores of supporters of the reform candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, and other dissidents.

No wonder Chavez and Ahmadinejad get along so well together--imagine the stories they must tell each other!

UPDATE: If this account is accurate, it would be one more reason why the protests are in trouble:

State media on Wednesday said that Mohsen Rezaie, one of three presidential candidates who had disputed the June 12 polls, was withdrawing his complaints to authorities. Mr. Rezaie, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards military force, made waves when he entered the race. The hard-line conservative was seen as targeting Mr. Ahmadinejad's core constituency, challenging the incumbent by charging economic mismanagement and foreign-policy adventurism. But Mr. Rezaie garnered less than 2% of the vote, according to official results.

He initially joined with former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi and reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi immediately after the vote in alleging widespread vote-rigging. The three candidates registered more than 600 allegations of irregularities.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Rezaie was quoted as citing national security in dropping his complaint filed with the Guardian Council, a top clerical review board that oversees elections. He also said there was too little time to probe the complaints thoroughly.

...Mr. Rezaie's background, and his initial willingness to stand with Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi in challenging the vote, lent the opposition a sense that it was representing a broad swath of Iran's political spectrum.

UPDATE: The Washington Post's Hope Fades but Anger Is Alive as Iran's Rulers Crack Down, does not paint an optimistic picture. It has interviews with a number of protesters and contrasts their original hopes with their reaction to the realities.

UPDATE: The Lede offers an explanation for today's quiet, despite the fact there was supposed to be another protest today:

Update | 3:12 p.m. An Iranian-American reader of The Lede who has been writing to us from Tehran says that Enghelab Square in central Tehran “today was real quiet.” According to messages posted online on Wednesday night, Enghelab was to have been the site of a protest on Thursday. Our reader notes that the city was possibly quiet on Thursday “today and tomorrow is the concur [national exam] — the huge test that every kid takes at the end of high school.”

We'll find out soon enought if that is the reason--though it's a stretch to say high school students have been the backbone of the protests.

Technorati Tag: Iran and Ahmadinejad.

If You Thought The US Was Too Quiet About Iran--Where's The UN?

Claudia Rosett has noticed:

Iran's regime is already in gross violation of a series of U.N. sanctions over a nuclear program the U.N. Security Council deems a threat to international peace. The same regime has now loosed its security apparatus of trained thugs and snipers on Iranians who have been, in huge numbers, demanding their basic rights. Surely top U.N. officials such as Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon should be leading the charge for liberty and justice, with the strongest possible criticism and measures against the Iranian regime.

So what has the UN done?
On June 15, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he was "closely following the situation" and had "taken note of the instruction by the religious leaders that there should be an investigation into this issue."

On June 16, He said he had "taken note ... very closely following ... just seeing how the situation will develop."

And it is not as if Ban did not have the opportunity to make a difference:

He sent a message to a meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attending as an observer, having briefly decamped from the upheaval that his own Ayatollah-blessed, irregularity-fraught "re-election" had sparked in Iran.

To this gathering in Russia, where Ahmadinejad posed for the cameras among a lineup of heads of state, Ban dispatched a message full of buzzwords about poverty, climate change and "combined commitment to a peaceful and prosperous common future." He made no mention of the "situation" in Iran. [emphasis added]

Even after the violence in Iran was obvious, and the world discovered who Neda Agha-Soltan was, Ban was too busy to comment--busy in Birmingham, England, accepting an award at a Rotary International Convention.

On June 22, during the regular noon press briefing:

Ban's spokeswoman, Michele Montas, delivered a long list of announcements, replete with notices of assorted public service awards, and of the demise of a man who served from 1976 to 1981 as the spokesman for former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim. There was nothing on Iran.

When asked afterwards if Ban had anything to say about what was happening in Iran, Montas said he was working on a statement.

When that statement finally materialized, it was all of one paragraph, "attributable to the Secretary General." In reaction to the violence unleashed against the protesters, the best that Ban could muster was that he was following the situation with "growing concern," and was "dismayed" by the violence.

Imagine: there actually is a leader who has managed to come out with a response more tepid than Obama.

Other than Ban, what are the other agencies in the UN doing?

Rosett runs down the list--

U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay was quoted as having "expressed concern" and noted that "the legal basis of the arrests that have been taking place, especially those of human rights defenders and political activists, is not clear." No word on the shooting of the protesters.

In the Security Council, "according to a Western diplomat connected with the Security Council, 'Iran is not being discussed at the council right now.'"

The General Assembly is led by the current president of the Assembly is Nicaragua's Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, who is a former Sandinista and a friend of Tehran, who made a trip there paid for by Iran.

Read the whole thing.

If in the end, the protesters achieve any kind of success--it will due entirely to their own actions.

At this point, the US and the UN offer nothing.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Iran and UN and Ban Ki-Moon.

On 3rd Anniversay of Gilad Shalit's Kidnapping--Obama Has Also Exchanged For Hostages

Today, it is 3 years since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by the terrorist group Hamas. Although the terrorists have withstood all attempts to rescue Shalit, there has been a price--for Gazans:

There is probably no house in Gaza that has not felt the price of the kidnapping. Since Shalit was abducted, more than 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and thousands more injured; more than 10,000 homes have been destroyed; and the border crossings into Gaza have been closed.

Nevertheless, Hamas is not budging. It continues to demand all 450 of the prisoners on its list, including the planners of major suicide bombings since 1993.

The Haaretz article suggests that the reason that Hamas has not compromised in its demands is that it has worked itself into a corner:

After the kidnapping, Hamas promised to obtain the release of masses of prisoners, and before Operation Cast Lead last December, it promised to get the border crossings reopened. But so far, it has yet to do either. Thus a compromise on Shalit might appear as a surrender to Israel.

Netanyahu, for his part, has kept this issue from becoming the kind of public story that it was during Olmert's term--perhaps because it seems unlikely that there is any way to obtain Gilad Shalit's release without releasing terrorists.

At least Netanyahu did not make a major issue of this during his campaign.

The same cannot be said of Obama.

During his before the Knesset last year, Bush said:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

At the time, Obama claimed that Bush was directing his comments to him and responded:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack.

...George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel. [emphasis added]

In point of fact, Obama has not only engaged with terrorists--he has released terrorists.

Andy McCarthy writes:

The story of this deal with the devil traces back to May 31, 2007. At the Iraqi finance ministry in Baghdad that day, the Asaib al-Haq network kidnapped five British civilians: an information-technology expert named Peter Moore and his four contract bodyguards. The civilians pleaded for the British government to engineer their safe return. British, American, and Iraqi forces were unsuccessful in numerous rescue attempts.

Asaib al-Haq operatives told Iraqi-government officials that they would release the Brits in exchange for the Qazali brothers and Daqduq. The Bush administration refused. The Times of London has reported that the Americans gave the British request respectful consideration but declined to approve it absent an Iraqi commitment to prosecute the terrorists. The Iraqis refused. Mohammad al-Sa’ady, an adviser to Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, rationalized the decision to take no action against the murderers of Americans who died fighting for Iraqis this way: “We pointed out that Qais Qazali has a problem with the Americans. He doesn’t have a problem with us. He is not wanted for crimes against Iraqis.”

By contrast, President Obama was persuaded to free Laith Qazali outright, just as Obama previously had authorized the outright release to Britain of the al-Qaeda terrorist Binyam Mohammed [link], who had plotted with “dirty bomber” José Padilla to commit post-9/11 mass-murder attacks in American cities. And although the administration has attempted to pass off Laith Qazali’s release as a necessary compromise of American national interests for the purportedly greater good of Iraqi reconciliation, the camouflage is thin indeed. Transparently, the terrorist has been freed as a quid pro quo for the release of British hostages.

However, as terrorists tend to do, they changed their demands after Qazali was released. They did, however, release 2 of the hostages--in a way sadly reminiscent of the release of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser:

The terrorists did, however, release two of their British hostages, or, to be precise, their corpses: Jason Creswell of Glasgow and Jason Swindlehurst of Lancashire had been dead for weeks, perhaps longer, when their remains were turned over to the British embassy in Iraq.

Like Israel, the US used to have a policy of not dealing with terrorists; like Israel, the US has now changed that policy. The arguments against such a policy are familiar--as are the results, as events in Israel testify.

One can sympathize with the kind of decision that Obama made and the considerations that went into deciding what to do. Yet, by making a public display of what he promised he would never consider, Obama set himself for extra criticism--aside from the dangers in setting terrorists free.

Perhaps that is the difference between a seasoned politician like Netanayahu and a merely clever one like Obama.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Obama and Gilad Shalit and Laith Qazali and Binyam Mohammed.

Gilad Shalit Was Kidnapped Three Years Ago Today

A request from Gilad Shalit's father:

The father of Gilad Shalit urged fellow Israelis on Thursday to think of his son's plight in Hamas captivity, three years after the soldier was snatched from an Israel Defense Forces post by Gaza militants.

"My request today, June 25, 2009, is for every person in the country, man and woman, young and old, to close their eyes for three minutes. Three minutes only, and to wait until these minutes are over, and in this time for everyone to try to think of what my son Gilad is going through," Noam Shalit told Army Radio.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Gilad Shalit.

Iran Regime Cracks Down Hard On Protesters

It started with confirmed reports:

Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, with one witness saying security forces beat people like “animals.”

At least two trusted sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.”

“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.

Gateway Pundit, who is also has extensive coverage of the protests in Iran, links to Iranian blogger Saeed Valadbaygi--who is liveblogging the protests in Baharestan.

Ed Morrissey has a video from CNN with a description of what is happening.

Also check out liveblogging at The Lede

You know things are bad when Obama is considering not inviting Iranian diplomats to the White House barbeque!

David Hazony writes:

It was only a few days ago when the popular uprising was waxing, that I could say with a straight face that Western leaders might be doing the right thing in showing restraint. The concern was then about discrediting the revolution inside Iran by seeming to confirm the accusation that it was a U.S. conspiracy.

Well, it’s certainly starting to look like I was wrong. Convinced that the protesters did not have the world on their side, the Mullahs have now unleashed total violence and horror on their own people. Fewer and fewer reports are escaping the hell, and the silencing of our sources inside Iran, one by one, suggests something far worse than the few dozen dead and few hundred arrested that the official news agencies are reporting.

Is it too late for massive Western pressure to make a difference? Is there any chance of it now? [emphasis added]

What is needed now is more than just an improved selection of emotive words.

More at Memeorandum

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Is Israel Caving On The Settlements?

Haaretz is claiming that Israel is ready to compromise on the issue of settlement expansion:

Israel is considering enacting a temporary freeze on settlement construction, excluding projects already underway, if the United States agrees to continued construction for natural growth once the freeze ends, an Israeli government source has told Haaretz.

U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell has been conducting low-profile talks with Israel in a bid to reach an agreement on the settlement issue, the government official said.

Mitchell was due to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris on Friday, but Netanyahu postponed the meeting and sent Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Washington for talks, the source said.

Barak believes that any progress on both the Palestinian and the regional peace tracks will render the settlement issue considerably less important, the government official said.

Wow! I forgot there was a Palestinian track!

(Does Obama know?)

Technorati Tag: Israel and Settlements.

Obama On The Move: Another Terrorist State--Another Dialogue Partner

If you think that word that Obama wants to open talks with Hamas and drop preconditions is just a rumor, take a look at whom Obama is talking to now:

U.S. President Barack Obama is resuming diplomatic ties with Syria after a four-year hiatus as he aims for a regional peace in the Middle East. Syrian President Bashar Assad has conditioned peace with Israel on its regaining sovereignty of the strategic Golan Heights. Slightly more than half of the population on the Golan comprises Jews, and most of the remainder are Druze.

Israeli Foreign Minister spokesman Andy David told Israel National News Wednesday morning that the move by the U.S. is part of President Obama’s policies of “talking with the enemy” and that the issue of the Golan Heights is not a top American priority.

Besides being the enemy of Israel, Syria is suspected in the assassination of anti-Syrian Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and Syria helped Iraq against the US by allowing it to move WMD into its country.

The end result is the absurd last paragraph of the article:

Syria remains on the American list of states that support terror, but relations between the two countries have been closer since President Obama took office in January.

Obviously, if Obama can talk to Syria, he will have no problem talking to Hamas either.

The only country in the Middle East that Obama seems to have a problem with is Israel.

(Come to think of it, if Obama can invite Iranian diplomats to a barbeque at the same time Iranian protesters are being shot in the street (will they go out for ice cream afterwards?), opening dialogue with Syria is no problem).

Technorati Tag: Israel and Syria and Obama.

The Israeli Settlements: Whose Land Is It Anyway?

According to the Washington Post, it all seems very cut and dried:

Thirty years ago, the State Department legal adviser issued an opinion in response to an inquiry from Congress: The establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories "is inconsistent with international law."

The opinion cited Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Israel has insisted that the Geneva Convention does not apply to settlers and broadly contests assertions of the settlements' illegality.

Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised...

..."As far as I know, I don't think it has ever been rescinded or challenged by any legal officer of the United States government," said Herbert J. Hansel, the former legal adviser who wrote the opinion. "Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion. But whatever you think of him, he was obviously not a lawyer. It still stands as the only definitive opinion of the U.S. government from a legal standpoint."

Unfortunately, the article is incomplete insofar as it fails to provide the other side of the argument. While the article mentions in passing that Israel does not believe the Geneva Convention is applicable to the issue of the settlements, at no point does the article address the basic question: "why not?"

The complete text of Hansell's opinion is available online [PDF; see paragraph 84]. Among the sources he refers to is Julius Stone--the author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law who was Challis Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law at the University of Sydney from 1942 to 1972. Hansell quotes from Stone's book, Israel and Palestine: An Assault on the Law of Nations, in the context of the limitations placed upon the occupying power, particularly that

the Occupant’s acts will not have legal effect, although they may in fact be unchallengeable until the territory is liberated. He is not entitled to treat the country as his own territory or its inhabitants as his own subjects...

However, in that very same book Stone himself writes that the attempt to claim Israel's settlements illegal is a "subversion. . . of basic international law principles."

Stone addressed this issue in another book, International Law and The Arab-Israel Conflict. An extract of the book is available online [PDF].

Stone describes there Israel's rights vis-a-vis the West Bank:

International law, therefore, gives a triple underpinning to Israel's claim that she is under no obligation to hand back automatically the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan or anyone else. In the first place, these lands never legally belonged to Jordan [because its grabbing the land in 1948 was never recognized]. Second, even if they had, Israel's own present control is lawful [because Israel fought a defensive war], and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third, international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties.

The crux of Hansell's argument is

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 6 UST 3516, provides, in paragraph 6:

’The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own
civilian population into the territory it occupies’.

Paragraph 6 appears to apply by its terms to any transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population, whatever the objective and whether involuntary or voluntary.

Hansell also addresses the fact that Egypt's and Jordan's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank had no legal standing:

It has been suggested that the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply in the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories. However, those principles appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if
any, until settlement of the conflict.

Stone does in fact differ with Hansell on the relevance of Jordan's illegal control of the West Bank and put forward the argument that the language of Article 2 specifically states that the Convention applies--

“to cases of … occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, by another such Party”.

The implication is that the Convention would not apply where the "High Contracting Party" has no actual claim to the territory.

While Hansell dismisses the argument, claiming the intent is focus on the civilian population, Stone also examines the context of the Geneva Convention:

It is clear that in the drafting history, Article 49 as a whole was directed against the heinous practice of the Nazi regime during the Nazi occupation of Europe in World War II, of forcibly transporting populations of which it wished to rid itself, into or out of occupied territories for the purpose of liquidating them with minimum disturbance of its metropolitan territory, or to provide slave labour or for other inhumane purposes.

[whereas]...Israel's position in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is merely that of an occupying power...

Hansell does note this argument and claims there is no reason to limit the Convention to mass population transfers.

However, there is an issue that Hansell does not address--he sidesteps the issue of who has title to the conquered territory. Is Hansell seriously suggesting that the land should automatically be returned to the country that took it illegally? Every limitation that he cites as applying to Israel as an occupying power should apply equally to Jordan--and more.

Stone quotes What Weight to Conquest? by Professor Stephen Schwebel--an American jurist and expert on international law who served at various positions in the U.S. Department of State, Legal Adviser Office and was a member of the UN International Law Commission. He was elected to the International Court of Justice in and was re-elected twice, and served as the President of the Court. Schwebel writes that the UN Charter--

makes necessary a vital distinction “between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held”:

“Those distinctions may be summarized as follows:

a) A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defence may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defence.

b) As a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that state may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defence.

c) Where the prior holder of the territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”

Again, Hansell never addresses this key issue of who has the better title to the territory--and today, as per the Peace Treaty of 1994, Jordan has already relinquished any claim of sovereignty over the West Bank--which is why Israel has also argued that the change in the situation necessitates a reevaluation.

The point is not that these are all of the arguments that can be marshaled on either side.

The point is that the issues are complex--and they are not being fully addressed.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Settlements and Herbert Hansell and Julius Stone.

Israel Job-Interview Fair-2009 Coming to a Computer Near You

From an email:

Israel Job-Interview Fair- 2009 Coming to a Computer Near YOU! Register now.

Making Aliyah this Summer? Still Looking for a job in Israel ?
Join the On-Line Job Interview Fair starting July 12th

First - Learn how to write a Resume/CV from the comfort of your own home via Webcast direct from Israel (July 12, 2009 10am EST 17:00 Israel Time)

Second - Send us your resume/CV for correction after the July 12th Webcast. We will correct it and send it back to you as well as forward it to the participating employers

Third - A Participating employer will review your resume. We will send your resume to all employers who are looking to fill a position they have open based on the qualifications you put down on your resume. In essence we present the employer your resume/CV for you! Please make sure your resume/CV reflects the position(s) you are looking for.

Finally - IF the employer thinks your resume is a good match to their open position(s), than they will invite you to an on-line interview live from Israel.

YOU MUST BE INVITED BY THE EMPLOYER TO HAVE AN INTERVIEW. If you do not receive an invite from an employer that means that the participating employers have found someone else for their open jobs and your resume/CV will be put on file.

This Job/Interview Fair is by
INVITATION ONLY BY THE EMPLOYER WHO CHOOSES TO SEE YOU.

Your resume/CV is critical to your success!

THIS IS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING ALIYAH OVER THE SUMMER MONTHS ONLY!

Please sign up NOW! Go to www.oujobs.com

Srulie Rosner
OU Job Board
jobs@ou.org

Technorati Tag: Israel and Aliya and Jobs.

Ramallah And Jenin: Formerly Terrorist Strongholds--Now Developing Economic And Cultural Centers

In Bombs in Gaza, Parties in Ramallah, Rinat Malkes wrote last summer about the amazing turnaround in Ramallah:

While the Palestinian political world remains in turmoil, the West Bank still struggles for normality — and achieves it, but only selectively. While northern West Bank cities like Nablus and Jenin remain tense, in the heart of Palestine the city of Ramallah seems more effervescent than ever — full of tourists, crowded coffee shops, and active daily life even as the headlines spell trouble; it is as if the city is in a strange quiet before a storm.

The violent escalation over the past week may challenge Palestinian and Israeli analysts who are currently asking themselves whether the situation can deteriorate even more, but the news doesn’t seem to bother Ramallah’s citizens. Many new and trendy Western-style coffee shops and restaurants have opened this summer, tourists came back to the streets around al-Manara Square, and despite the price index high of 10.20% during the first quarter of the year, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, commerce is buzzing.

It’s easy to notice a huge variety of languages, cultures, and Western faces among the crowded tables of Cafe de la Paix, next to Ramallah’s city hall. Pilgrims, foreign NGOs’ personnel, journalists, and Palestinians from other West Bank cities have found a perfect place to spend some quality leisure time. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Now, a year later, it seems that Jenin is catching up:

The skies lit up over Jenin last month, and it wasn't tracer bullets or flash bombs but celebratory fireworks, set off to mark the occasion of the opening of Hirbawi Home Center, a new luxury establishment on the city's outskirts.

The five-story building near the Jalame checkpoint cost $5 million to build, says its owner, and it is filled with deluxe, foreign-made products seen mostly in the pages of newspaper supplements.

This shopping opportunity is intended to interest the upper crust of Jenin, and while some might think the proposition suggests financial suicide, the profit forecasts for the project have been so favorable the owner plans to open four more shops in the West Bank and one in Jordan.

Considering the commonly accepted image of the West Bank, one would assume that there is no demand for the luxury items that Hirbawi Home Center is offering--but the truth is that the demand for those luxuries exists and so do the means of acquiring them.

This may not sound like the familiar description of the occupied territories - the impoverished Palestinian village or the overcrowded refugee camp, a population sustaining itself on international aid. But it turns out that quite a few Palestinians consider a plasma screen, a surround sound stereo and comfortable chairs to be fairly essential items.

Here, on the fifth floor of the Jenin operation, overlooking the fields separating Israel from Jenin, are the in-demand electric gadgets: enormous TV screens, vacuum cleaners, espresso machines, and the list goes on and on. [CEO Ziad] Turabi points out that some products are only available in Home Center shops. "This is an espresso machine that grinds the coffee beans," he says. "People want more and more of these products. They ask for the finest quality." Most of the products on sale are imported through the port of Ashdod. "We have exclusive deals with quite a few brands," says Turabi. "They'll only market their products at Home Center."

..."We've been working for a few months now and every day had been like opening day. We are very pleased, and the profits have been very satisfying so far. Don't worry, we're not going to lose, and we truly believe that. It's true that Jenin is like a big village and wealthy people here are few. Everyone told us to start off with Ramallah. But I came here a few months ago and ran some profit estimates."

Read the whole thing.

The face of the West Bank is changing--albeit very slowly, and with lots of external help. The West Bank still does not have the infrastructure to exist as an independent state, but it is not the impoverished and overpopulated hellhole that Palestinian apologists claim.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Jenin and Ramallah.

How Israel Helps The Iran Protesters--And What More It Can Do

Israel is doing its share to help the protesters in Iran:

The spread of the Internet and satellite television in Iran over the past decade seemed to eclipse the prominence of Mr. Amir's old-fashioned shortwave broadcasts on Kol Israel, Israel's public radio. But now, as the Web in Iran is either blocked or dramatically slowed and satellite-TV channels are jammed by the government amid spreading unrest, Mr. Amir has suddenly become relevant again.

"Today we have many more listeners inside the country because Iranians are thirsty for any information" about the unrest, the 69-year-old Mr. Amir says. He estimates the Iranian audience for Kol Israel's 85-minute daily show in Persian is between two million and six million people. Independent audience numbers, for obvious reasons, are impossible to come by.

Though semiretired, Mr. Amir has been hosting the show every day since Iran's controversial June 12 elections, narrating news summaries and taking live telephone calls from listeners within Iran. The call-in part of the broadcast, normally a weekly feature, is now on air daily due to the current unrest. Because Iran bans phone and postal links with Israel, Iranian callers dial a special number in Germany; as a precaution, Mr. Amir asks them not to mention their names or hometowns.

In fact, Kol Israel has been so successful that it has claimed pride of place as Ayatollah Khamenei's least favorite foreign media source:

Kol Israel, of course, isn't the only foreign radio station broadcasting in Persian. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Voice of America and U.S.-funded Radio Farda also beam into the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khamenei, however, on Friday singled out Kol Israel, naming it first in his tirade against alleged foreign interference in Iranian affairs.

"The enemies are trying through their media, which is controlled by dirty Zionists. The Zionist, U.S. and U.K. radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who supported and those who didn't support the state," the ayatollah said, insisting that all presidential candidates fully accepted the Islamic Republic and its government system. "Accusing the government of corruption because of Zionist reports is not the right thing."

In Israel's rare opportunity, Caroline Glick suggests that Israel could do even more:

Although Israel is far away from Iran, it has significant capacity to help the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its Internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know what is happening or where things are leading.

Now that Netanyahu is speaking openly in support of the protesters, maybe Israel will do more to help.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Obama's Finding That Using Carter Is A Two-Edged Sword (Updated)

I posted a couple of days ago about the report by Aaron Klein of World Net Daily that while meeting with Hamas, Carter relayed Obama's willingness to drop the 3 preconditions:

Former President Jimmy Carter presented Hamas with a written initiative intended to open talks between the Islamist group and the U.S. without Hamas having to accept all conditions previously laid out for dialogue by the American government, top Hamas officials told WND.

Those conditions, expressed twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are Hamas' renouncement of violence, recognition of Israel and agreement to abide by previous PLO commitments. The conditions were adopted by the Mideast Quartet, which consists of the U.S., United Nations, Russia and the European Union.

Carter, however, handed Hamas last week a letter "that aims to open dialogue between Hamas and U.S.," Mushir al-Masri, a member of Hamas' parliament and a spokesman for the Islamist group, told WND today.

Two top Hamas sources told WND Carter's initiative bypasses Clinton's conditions and instead asks Hamas to recognize the so-called two-state solution as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. [emphasis added]

This new policy towards Hamas dovetails with Carter's apparent new relevance in the Obama administration. Helena Cobban writes about Carter's reemergence:

just one day after returning to the US from his grueling two-week tour around the Middle East, the 84-year-old former President from Plains met with senior administration officials here in Washington DC. (Update: The senior officials he met with included Sen. George Mitchell, as is spelled out in the updated version of the IPS story.)

In the piece, I also note that that meeting,

underlined the change in Carter’s relevance and status in the Obama era. The visits he made to the Middle East while George W. Bush was president were barely tolerated by the administration, which kept him at arm’s length.

...So now that Carter is indeed getting access to senior figures in the Obama administration-- and his ideas are gaining a respectful and engaged hearing there-- some of those same tired retreads from the Clinton years (like Aaron Miller) are at it again. [Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

Cobban, however, may be more thrilled with Carter's new found pull than others are--and those others seem to include the White House as well, according to the LA Times:

Here's the scary thing for the new White House: the terrifying words "Jimmy Carter" have started appearing in print and on the air, recalling the ex-Georgia governor's ineptness and....

...apparent powerlessness in handling his Iranian (hostage) issues in the late 1970s. That impression lead to 12 years of Reagan-Bush Republican White Houses.

The Obama is finding that the image of Carter has not been rehabilitated. That being the case, one can hope that he will be seldom used by the White House--and his ideas even less so, starting with the idea of treating terrorist groups that bomb civilians as negotiating partners.

UPDATE: Rick Richman has further information on whom Carter met with in the White House:

the State Department disclosed that there had indeed been prior contacts: Carter had met with Near Eastern Affairs Bureau Deputy Assistant Secretary David Hale and with National Security staff, and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security had assisted the Secret Service with security for Carter’s trip to Gaza.

and notes the hypocrisy in dealing with Hamas:

There is a certain imbalance in an administration that asserts the strictest possible interpretation of Israel’s Phase I Roadmap obligations, while simultaneously facilitating meetings for a former president with the terrorist group the Palestinians — as part of their own Phase I obligations — are required to dismantle. And the proposal presented at the meetings does not appear to have been merely one by a private citizen: the proposal ought to be disclosed, together with a better explanation of the administration’s role in it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Carter and Obama.

Statistical Analysis: Votes For Ahmadinejad Don't Add Up

Yesterday, I posted about questions on the numbers of votes where in some areas more than 100% of the population of those areas voted. Now there are more questions about the numbers in the Iran election:

A statistical analysis has now been published to try to support the claim that the opposition in Iran is right to question the declared result.

On the face of it, there seems no reason to doubt the official numbers.

In 2005, in a run-off ballot, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president with 62% of the vote compared with 36% for his opponent, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

In 2009, in the first round, President Ahmadinejad was re-elected with 63% of the vote compared with 34% for Mir Hossein Mousavi.

So what is the problem?

According to a study edited by Professor Ali Ansari, of the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews and of the London think tank Chatham House, the problem lies in the increased turnout.

In 2005, Mr Ahmadinejad got 17 million votes and in 2009 he got 24 million.

The question is, where did all those extra votes come from?

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, according to the LA Times, the Iranian authorities have announced that the election results will stand. And more than that:

There were signs elsewhere that the protesters' enthusiasm was tapering off. Near Tehran University, police dragged off a young man in a green shirt, the official color of the Mousavi campaign, without raising the hackles of pedestrians, who erupted in anger during similar encounters in previous days.

...The Tehran prosecutor's office said it had arrested at least 457 people in Saturday's unrest, but a source inside Evin Prison said nearly 1,000 had been brought in. Among those arrested in an ongoing sweep of opposition figures was Ardeshir Amir Arjomand, Mousavi's legal advisor.

The Iranian government has clearly indicated where it stands.

Now the ball is in the court of the demonstrators--and the world, as it watches from afar.

Technorati Tag: Iran Election.

Obama May Need To Brush Up On Peace Efforts In The Middle East

During a remark to the press on June 15, Obama spoke about the need for both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to make concessions:

On the Israeli side, that means a cessation of settlements. And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means, but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress. [emphasis added]

Dr. Aaron Lerner takes Obama to task on his reference to 'agreements' about the status of Israeli 'settlements'. He asks:

why isn't there someone on his team - or someone from the outside who
has access to him - who can explain to him that there are no "past
agreements" that categorize the settlement activity as "illegal".

That's "agreements". The Roadmap wasn't an agreement. Nor was the Annapolis
"Joint Understanding on Negotiations." The only "agreements" are the series
of Oslo "agreements" and none of them categorize any Israeli settlement
activity as "illegal"

In point of fact, the only construction activity that is illegal in the Oslo
agreements is Palestinian construction that is in violation of various
mostly security related restrictions.

If Obama intends to push the issue of Israeli concessions on freezing the settlements, he is going to have to clarify a number of issues about the past understandings between the US and Israel about the settlements--and demonstrate his own understanding of the issues as well.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Settlements.

Iranian Envoy Admits Bomb Is The Goal

But he does overstate his case just a little bit:

Iran's envoy to the UN atomic watchdog caused a buzz among journalists on Wednesday when he apparently misspoke and said his country had the right to a nuclear weapon.

After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.

"The whole Iranian nation are united... on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Soltanieh apparently was mistaken about the will of the Iranian and about what they are united on. The main thing that is uniting Iranians these days is to put people like Soltanieh out of a job. During a phone interview on CNN's "American Morning," an Iranian student protester made it clear that Soltanieh did not speak for him and for many others:

Mohammad: Americans, European Union, international community, this government is not definitely — is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.

What remains now is to see what that international community is willing to do.

Technorati Tag: Iran and Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

Stronger Than The Israel Lobby!

David Hazony writes that the White House cannot completely ignore Israel:

The White House is atwitter after a new poll revealed a dramatic shift among Israelis regarding the administration’s policies towards Israel. The poll, conducted by Smith Research and commissioned by the Jerusalem Post, shows that only 6% of Israelis consider Obama “pro-Israel,” while 50% see him as “pro-Palestinian.” Compare this with the same poll from a month earlier, in mid-May, which had 31% responding that the Obama Administration is pro-Israel, and just 14% saying pro-Palestinian. What has changed in the last month? Not much, other than Obama’s dramatic Cairo speech, which described Israel as the product of centuries of Jewish suffering and the Holocaust

So why should Obama care about what Israelis think about his policies?

There is a political calculus for the President here: As much as American Jews may have supported Obama without caring too much about his record on Israel, at the end of the day, American Jews tend to care deeply about Israel, and their sense of what’s happening with Israel is highly informed by what Israelis think (or, at least, Israeli elites). In other words, so dramatically lopsided a view of American policy towards Israel will not be lost on American Jewish voters. Midterms are not that far off.

Apparently, there is a more potent force than the Israel Lobby to unify American Jews:

Bad US policy.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Good News: The Iran Election Reflects The Will Of Over 100% Of Iranians

Looks like there's something fishy after all about the Iran elections:

Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.

But not to worry--Kadkhodaei got to the bottom of it:

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

But not to worry! This is all really quite normal:

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

Many more explanations like this and the regime may as well just close up shop.

Technorati Tag: Iran Election.

Creator Of 'Maus' Draws Cartoon About The Fate Of The St. Louis For Washington Post

From an email:

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

News Alert: June 21, 2009

For more information, contact:
rafaelmedoff@aol.com / 202-434-8994

CREATOR OF "MAUS" AND HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN TEAM UP
ON WASH. POST CARTOON ABOUT 1939 REFUGEE SHIP

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The creator of the Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, "Maus," has teamed up with a Holocaust historian to create a full-page cartoon in the Washington Post about the voyage of the 1939 Jewish refugee ship, the St. Louis.

The cartoon feature, by Maus creator Art Spiegelman and Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, appears in today's Washington Post (June 21, 2009) and may be viewed at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/opinions/outlook/st-louis-refugee-ship-blues/static.html

Today marks the seventieth anniversary of the end of the voyage of the St. Louis, which was forced to take its more than 900 German Jewish refugee passengers back to Europe after being refused entry to Cuba and the United States in June 1939.

The Spiegelman-Medoff collaboration is the latest in a series of projects by the Wyman Institute to teach Holocaust history through the medium of graphic art. Other recent projects include:

-- "The Last Outrage," a comic strip by Medoff and legendary comic book artist Neal Adams, with a foreword by longtime Marvel Comics publisher Stan Lee, which was published in the Marvel comic book X-Men: Testament - Magneto in February 2009. "The Last Outrage" tells the story of Dina Babbitt, an artist who was forced by the Nazis to paint a series of portraits in Auschwitz, but has been unable to get her paintings back from the Polish museum which is holding them. An animated version of "The Last Outrage" has been included by Disney's educational division its new DVDs based on "Anne Frank," "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," and "A Beautiful Life."

-- "They Refused to Go," a comic strip by Medoff and comic book artist Sal Amendola, concernin g American athletes who boycotted the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. It was published in The New Republic on August 13, 2008.

-- "Cartoonists Against the Holocaust," an acclaimed traveling exhibit, designed by the Wyman Institute with comic creators Joe Kubert and Adam Kubert, featuring political cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s that tried to raise American public awareness of the Nazi genocide.

----------------------

ABOUT THE WYMAN INSTITUTE: The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, located in Washington, D.C., is a research and education institute focusing on America’s response to the Holocaust. It is named in honor of the eminent historian and author of the 1984 best-seller The Abandonment of the Jews, the most important and influential book concerning the U.S. response to the Nazi genocide.

Th e Institute’s Advisory Committee includes Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel, Members of Congress, and other luminaries.
The Institute’s Academic Council includes more than fifty leading professors of the Holocaust, American history, and Jewish history.
The Institute’s Arts & Letter s Council, chaired by Cynthia Ozick, includes prominent artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers.

(A complete list is available upon request.)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Holocaust and Art Spiegelman and Maus and The St. Louis.

Are Only Muslim Terrorists Are Allowed To Dress As Women In Islamic Law?

Islamic law appears to be quite clear--and strict--when it comes to men wearing women's clothes:

Sixty-seven Filipino men working in Saudi Arabia face jail and lashes for 'imitating women' after being arrested at a party in which a number were dressed in drag, a Philippines embassy official said Saturday.

Riyadh police arrested all 67 men at a private party and drag show in a resort villa near Riyadh on June 13, Philippines embassy Vice Consul Roussel Reyes told AFP.

'They had alcohol and some were dressed up like women,' he said.

Both drinking and cross-dressing are forbidden under Saudi Arabia's conservative Islam-based sharia laws, and both could bring up to six months in prison and lashes.

But if cross-dressing is so expressly forbidden, how is one to explain these stories of Muslim terrorists dressing up as women in order to escape capture:

• Pakistan mosque chief 'tried to flee in burqa'
• U.S. Troops Kill Taliban Commander Clad in Woman's Clothing
• Mosque leader in burka escape bid
• Failed assassin was dressed as a woman
• Fatah commander killed after attempted escape dressed as woman

Talk about you double standard...

Technorati Tag: Cross-dressing and Islam.

US Ready To Drop The 3 Preconditions For Talking With Hamas

It seems that appeasing minds think alike.

The EU apparently feels that it is no longer necessary to hold Hamas to the 3 preconditions that have been used as the litmus test for deciding on whether to open dialog with the terrorist group Hamas.

Government sources in Jerusalem said France led the efforts to keep what has become known as the Quartet's three conditions on Hamas from being included in the European Council's conclusions on the Middle East peace process.

Instead, the statement said the foreign ministers expressed "continued encouragement for inter-Palestinian reconciliation behind [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and support for the mediation efforts by Egypt and the Arab League." [emphasis added]

As reported by Aaron Klein of World Net Daily, there is word that during Carter's meeting with Hamas, he relayed Obama's willingness to pursue a similar route:

Former President Jimmy Carter presented Hamas with a written initiative intended to open talks between the Islamist group and the U.S. without Hamas having to accept all conditions previously laid out for dialogue by the American government, top Hamas officials told WND.

Those conditions, expressed twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are Hamas' renouncement of violence, recognition of Israel and agreement to abide by previous PLO commitments. The conditions were adopted by the Mideast Quartet, which consists of the U.S., United Nations, Russia and the European Union.

Carter, however, handed Hamas last week a letter "that aims to open dialogue between Hamas and U.S.," Mushir al-Masri, a member of Hamas' parliament and a spokesman for the Islamist group, told WND today.

Two top Hamas sources told WND Carter's initiative bypasses Clinton's conditions and instead asks Hamas to recognize the so-called two-state solution as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. [emphasis added]

Both the EU and the US would require only 2 conditions, one of which is backing for the Saudi Peace Plan. On the other condition, the EU just wants Hamas to promise to try to makeup with Fatah; Obama wants Hamas to commit to the two state solution.

John Hinderaker, who posted about Klein's report at Powerline, notes:

Is the report accurate? I believe Klein is considered reliable, and the story is, sadly, plausible.

There are alot of things about Obama's policy towards Israel that are equally sad.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Hamas.

When It Comes To Obama, Europe May Be In The Same Boat As Israel

Victor Davis Hanson evaluates the first 6 months of Obama's presidency. In course of his evaluation, he makes the following point:

It used to be cute to talk about how “Bush turned off the Europeans.” Perhaps. But beneath all the public demonstrations and burning effigies, the old guard knew that Bush, like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan (but not Carter), would be there should the Russians, Koreans, Chinese, the lunatic regimes in the Middle East, the Al Qaedists and the rest threaten Western interests.

I don’t see how they can assume such a thing any more.

From the trivial like the treatment of the Churchill bust or the DVD gift to Gordon Brown, to the profound like the serial apologies, voting present on Iran, and deer-in-the-headlights stance on Korea, they must assume that the “European Rapid Deployment Force” is now their primary bulwark against the foes of civilization.

These days, with just 6% of Israelis seeing Obama as pro-Israel, Europe and Israel may be finding something they can both agree on.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Europe.

What 6 Months Of Obama Has Done To US-Israel Relations

In Israel Betrayed, James Kirchick writes in The New York Post about how Obama has turned his back on Israel--and about the consequences:

The percentage of American voters who call themselves supporters of Israel has plummeted from 69% last September to 49% this month, according to the Israel Project. Meanwhile, only 6% of Jewish Israelis consider Obama to be "pro-Israel," a Jerusalem Post poll found, pointing to a disturbing gulf between the two nations. There are even signs of rising anti-Semitism, as a survey by Columbia and Stanford professors found that 32% of Democrats blamed Jews for the financial crisis.

That the Golden Age of US-Israel relations is over is clear.

The question now remains as to what can be done deal with the current tensions that Obama has created.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Israel, Twitter, And Public Diplomacy

Jeff Pulver's 140 Characters Conference took place on June 16th and 17th:

While the original scope of the event was to explore “the effects of twitter on: Celebrity, “The Media”, Advertising and (maybe) Politics”, the scope of the event has expanded and we will be covering these topics and a lot more. #140conf will be taking a look at twitter as a platform and will be taking a look at some of the industries which have been disrupted by the advent of twitter.

You can get an idea of the broad range of topics that were discussed here.

David Saranga, Consul for Media and Public Affairs at the Israeli Consulate in New York, spoke on "The use of Twitter in Public Diplomacy."

Here is what he said:

If you check out the website of the Israeli Consulate of New York, there are links for Israel accounts on social media.

And check out the Israeli Consulate of New York on Twitter.

More on David Saranga on Wikipedia.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Twitter and 140 Characters Conference and David Saranga.

Just What Is Hizbollah Doing In Colombia?

Having operated for more than a quarter-century, (Hezbollah) has developed capabilities that Al-Qaeda can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives.
former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff

CQ Politics relates a report that indicates that the Mossad has been busy--with some help:

Intelligence Online (IO), a subscription-only insider newsletter based in Paris, cited the roll-ups of Hezbollah operatives in Azerbaijan and Egypt and an embarrassing diplomatic flap in Colombia as setbacks to the Iran- and Syria-backed organization.

The trial of two Lebanese Hezbollah agents arrested on espionage charges in Azerbaijan is scheduled to open in Baku next Wednesday, June 24.

IO claims that the arrests of Ali Karaki and Ali Najmeddin were the result of the "active cooperation between the CIA outpost in Azerbaijan, Turkey's Milli Istihbarat Teskilati and Israel's Mossad."

A Cairo court, meanwhile, is expected to see the appearance this week of another suspected Lebanese Hezbollah operative, the newsletter reports. Sami Chehab was arrested in April on charges of assembling a terrorist cell of 48 persons in Egypt.

"As in Azerbaijan, several foreign intelligence agencies took part in rolling up the network, particularly the CIA and Mossad," according to IO editor Philippe Vasset.

The cases follow on a diplomatic flap in Columbia last October, when "Hezbollah's leadership was also obliged to send an official letter to the Colombian diplomatic mission in Beirut to deny any link with ... three Lebanese nationals who had just been arrested in Bogotá and accused of running an international cocaine ring," IO reported.

Apparently those 3 Lebanese nationals were giving 12% of their gains to the terrorist group.

Of course, one could ask why it is that a group that claims that it have only the best interests of the Lebanese people at heart--that, and the destruction of Israel--needs to have agents in Colombia.

In October 2005, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of Director of American Center for Democracy, testified before the House of Commons in Ottawa about terrorism financing:

...Since the mid 1980s, Hizballah has used illicit drugs as a major funding source and weapon against the West. An official Iranian fatwa ruled: “We are making these drugs for Satan America and the Jews. If we cannot kill them with guns, so we will kill them with drugs.”

Hizballah’s involvement in the illegal drug trade centers on a transnational triangle of illicit activity conducted from areas of Lebanon, the Balkans and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. The unstable, often corrupt, government structures, weak economic platforms, porous borders and largely unsupervised waterways and airfields in these regions are highly conducive to illicit operations.

In Lebanon’s Beka’a Valley, Hizballah controls approximately 13,000 acres that produce at least 300 tons of hashish annually, most of which is exported to Europe. This high-quality Lebanese hashish grosses Hizballah $180 million annually. Hizballah run laboratories refining tons of heroin, are estimated to bring in some $3 billion annually. Hizballah also smuggles arms. However, one smuggled Kalashnikov wholesales for $500, while one kilo of heroin wholesales for $3,000- $5000.

Hizballah operatives have strong relationships with major Narco-terrorist organizations, criminal gangs and other Islamist organizations throughout Europe; Africa; South and Central America; the Caribbean and Mexico.

Brazilian authorities estimated that tri-border region criminals launder approximately $6 to $6.5 billion annually. A Paraguayan former Interior Minister reported that from 1991 to 2001 alone, Hizballah received anywhere from $50 million to $500 million from this region.

Brazilian security agents also estimate that in 2000 alone, at least $261 million was sent to the Middle East from Islamist organizations in the tri-border region, including Hizballah, Islamic Jihad and HAMAS.

A March 2005 U.S. Congressional report on Terrorism in Latin America acknowledges the presence of Hizballah, but says that: al- Qaeda[’s] “presence in the tri-boarder region remain[s] uncorroborated.” However, there is ample evidence that al Qaeda, works with other terror organizations such as Islamic Jihad, a Hizballah subsidiary, and HAMAS who share the same agenda—to create Islamic rule worldwide.

These successes by the Mossad and the CIA are barely the tip of the iceberg.

It's time that the true nature of that iceberg become known. Dr. Ehrenfeld testified that in addition to drug trafficking, Hizbullah also is involved in:

· Illegal arms trading
· Cigarette smuggling
· Currency, video and CD counterfeiting
· Fraud
· Robbery
· Operating illegal telephone exchanges
· Extortion

Let's make Hizbollah a prime target in the war against terrorism.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Hizbullah.

Why Obama Is Cool To The Idea Of Moderates And Democracy In Iraq And Iran

Jonah Goldberg offers another possibility for those who think that Obama is making demands of Israel in order for the US to get the Arab countries united against Iran:

Well, what if getting Iran to drop its nukes is incidental and Israeli concessions fundamental? In other words, the prize of Obama's foreign-policy agenda isn't getting Iran to drop its nukes, but to force Israel to do what he thinks it must to make peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world.

I don't think this would necessitate some dastardly anti-Israel scheme or bias. Rather, I think Obama has visions of bringing peace to the Middle East and settling the Israel-Palestinian issue. This is a vision that has visited every president for generations, and Obama has a more pro-Palestinian past than most. But wherever his sympathies may lie, it seems he has convinced himself as a matter of "realist" calculation that his only leverage in that struggle is Iran's nuclear program and the petrifying Medusa's head of Ahmandinejad. If the Iran card is taken out, or even substantially changes, what leverage does Obama have for his real goal? [emphasis added]

If so, it would explain why it appears that Obama is dragging his feet--and drawing criticism--on expressing support for the demonstrators in Iran. After all, not only would it take away his leverage, but the demonstrations could possibly lead to a more moderate regime and demonstrate that peace in the Arab world can be achieved by other means.

Let's take this a step further: Could Goldberg's idea also explain Obama's coolness to the whole idea of the US troops in Iraq? According to Obama's thinking, the road to democracy in the Middle East is not through a democratized Iraq--it is through Israel, so maintaining a US presence there will not attain the goal of peace in the Middle East.

Obama is not actually interested in peace in the Middle East. Obama's goal is a peaceful--quiet--Middle East. And the only thing that stands in the way of that is Israel.

And the long history of Muslim vs. Muslim violence.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Iran and Iraq.

The Revolution Will NOT Be Twittered (Updated)

I've already posted about the accuracy of Twitter in the context of Iran. This seems to be a topic that is not going away and is being further examined.

For example, despite the enormous popularity of Twitter, Slate finds that Doubting Twitter is still a good idea:

One of the sharper Twitter critics I've read this week is Evgeny Morozov, who, writing in Slate's sister site ForeignPolicy.com yesterday, posed the heretical notion that tracking or blocking the tweets and blog postings by in-country Iranian protesters just might not be the regime's top priority. "When you've got real riots in the street, Twitter-riots do not look that threatening," he writes. Morozov also doubts that Twitter has been instrumental in organizing protests as opposed to publicizing them.

In Iran's Twitter Revolution? Maybe Not Yet, Business Week shares that thought, noting what is being used instead:

However, Iran experts and social networking activists say that while Iranian election protesters have certainly used social media tools, no particular technology has been instrumental to organizers' ability to get people on the street. Indeed, most of the organizing has occurred through far more mundane means: SMS text messages and word of mouth. Sysomos, a Toronto-based Web analytics company that researches social media, says there are only about 8,600 Twitter users whose profiles indicate they are from Iran.

"I think the idea of a Twitter revolution is very suspect," says Gaurav Mishra, co-founder of 20:20 WebTech, a company that analyzes the effects of social media. "The amount of people who use these tools in Iran is very small and could not support protests that size." [emphasis added]

The key importance of Twitter, then, is not the hard information it can provide--instead, the strength of Twitter is to keep the topic alive and circulating. That is something that can be done with just a core group.

Turning to the potential problem of Twitter in these kinds of situations, Business Week notes:

One analyst cautioned that while Twitter or Facebook may keep the outside world's attention trained on Iranian protests, there was also a danger such tools could exaggerate the movement's momentum. "You can get the notion that Ahmadinejad is very unpopular and that Mousavi has this groundswell of support, but we don't have data that shows that," says Reva Bhalla, director of analysis for Austin (Tex.)-based Stratfor, a strategic intelligence and forecasting company. "Ahmadinejad has real support, but his supporters don't have smartphones. There is a real risk of amplifying [one side]." Ahmadinejad is thought to have a greater base of support in rural areas, while Mousavi is popular with urbanites.

Slate goes a step further--the potential danger for protesters who use Twitter:

There's a potential dark side to the Twitter revolution. The New Republic's Jason Zengerle points to an Ethan Zuckerman interview on NPR's On the Media from April in which Zuckerman, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, talks about his study of Moldova's Twitter revolution.

Zuckerman found evidence that several days into that rebellion, Twitter was "being used as a disinformation channel by forces who might have been aligned with the government, essentially trying to scare people away from demonstrating again."

How long before the secret police start sending out organizational tweets—"We're massing at 7 p.m. at the Hall of the People for a march to the Hall of Justice!"—and busts everybody who shows up?

None of this is aimed at diminishing what Twitter has been able to accomplish. The fact remains that Twitter has been a formidable tool in generating and maintaining interest in world events in general and in Iran in particular. It is just necessary to remember that Twitter--and the other social media tools--do have limitations.

UPDATE: Peggy Noonan differs--and ponders the role Twitter would have made in The French Revolution:

A small point on the technological aspects of the Iranian situation. Some ask if the impact of the new technology is exaggerated. No. Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there. If they Twittered and liveblogged the French Revolution, it still would have been the French Revolution: "this aft 3pm @ the bastille." It all still would have happened, perhaps with marginally greater support. Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don't work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged.

The interesting question is what technology would have done after the Revolution, during the Terror. What would word of the demonic violence, the tumbrels and nonstop guillotines unleashed circa 1790-95 have done to French support for the Revolution, and world support? Would Thomas Jefferson have been able to continue his blithe indifference if reports of France grimly murdering France had been Twittered out each day?

(check out the Slate article for links to other interesting articles on this subject)

Technorati Tag: Twitter and Iran Elections.

The Washington Post Still Goes To Bat For Hamas

From The Washington Post

A senior Hamas official praised former President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday, a day after he met with the group, but said he failed to persuade the Islamic rulers of Gaza to accept international demands, including recognizing Israel.

...[Deputy foreign minister Ahmed] Youssef said the other two international conditions - renouncing violence and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians - are irrelevant.

So much for the 3 preconditions. Obviously, Carter made a big impression--just as Hamas continues to make a big impression on the Washington Post. Check out how the paper contradicts itself in 2 successive paragraphs:

According to Hamas ideology, there is no room for a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East. The militant group has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds.

Even so, some Hamas officials have indicated they could support creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, implying a form of tacit acceptance of Israel.

And the Kassam rockets are just Hamas' way of saying 'welcome to the neighborhood!'

The WaPo must be desperate. Compare this implied acceptance of Israel with the kind of recognition of Israel that Abbas has used:

"Defending his "recognition" of Israel on TV network Al-Arabiya in October 2006, he [Abbas] explained that it was more a practical reality than a meaningful political position. He cited as an example the need for the PA to get $500 million from Israel: "The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if [the PA finance minister] does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes."

For Abbas, the PA 'recognizes' Israel to the extent that it allows him to get money from Israel. To what degree does the Washington Post think that Hamas accepts Israel--to the degree that the West will stop withholding money?

Once again, Hamas has no reason not to stand pat, while the West show it is willing to meet them more than half way.

Technorati Tag: Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

Today: NY Donor Drive For 12-Year Old Leukemia Patient

From an email from Mesora.org

Asher, a 12 year old Leukemia patient from Woodmere, NY, is in urgent need of a bone marrow or, blood stem cell transplant. Asher and his family are asking all caring and compassionate people to take a moment and have a gentle cheek swab to determine if you are a match. Donations would also be greatly appreciated to help defer the costs of testing.

Donor Drive
Thursday, June 18, 2009 4pm to 9pm
The Brandeis School
25 Frost Lane
Lawrence, NY 11559
For information, directions or to make a donation
call Mark Silfen at: 917-723-4866

Summer Classes From The OU Job Board--And Israel Virtual Job Fair

From an email:

Don't be Bored this Summer- Be Stimulated! Tool-Up YOUR Career at the OU Job Board

The OU Job Board has prepared an extensive series of retooling classes that is sure to enhance your career. Are you looking for a job? Are you looking to put your current career i9n high gear? The OU Job Board has the answers for you.
Starting July 7, 2009 and going through the summer, the OU Job Board will be giving the following classes. PLEASE SIGN UP NOW before these classes sell out!
Please go DIRECTLY to the OU Job Board at www.oujobs.org

WEB DEVELOPER CLASSES
Wed. July 15- A registration fee of $36.00 for all 6 classes is required. This class is NOT available on-line

QuickBooks Beginners
Mon. July 13-A registration fee of $36.00 for all 6 classes is required. This class is NOT available on-line

Learn MAC/MAC's Software
Tue. July 07-A registration fee of $25.00 for all 6 classes is required. This class is MAYBE available on-line. Multiple discounts are available if you take 2 or 3 classes.

Learn Adobe Photoshop
Tue. July 07- A registration fee of $25.00 for all 6 classes is required. This class is MAYBE available on-line. Multiple discounts are available if you take 2 or 3 classes.

Learn Microsoft Powerpoint
Tue. July 07- A registration fee of $25.00 for all 6 classes is required. This class is MAYBE available on-line. Multiple discounts are available if you take 2 or 3 classes.

To register for any or all these classes please go to http://www.oujobs.org/. If you need help in covering some costs of these classes we will try to see how to accommodate you.

Also
Israel Virtual Job Fair
Are you on your way to Israel this summer? Join the OU Job Board webinar on CV/Resume writing, submit you CV/resume to us for correction and then join the Virtual Job Fair in August 2. This is only for CERTIFIED ALIYAH /OLIM on a booked flight for Israel over the summer.
Free for all

For more information contact jobs@ou.org

Technorati Tag: Job Fair.

Launching of www.Jerusalem.com--Your Gateway to the Holy City

Via IMRA:

Launching www.Jerusalem.com Your Gateway to the Holy City

For preview: www.Jerusalem.com

Jerusalem.com is the first-ever attempt to bring the holiest place on earth
online, providing people from all over the world with the opportunity to
explore, pray in, interact with and be inspired by Jerusalem.

Finally, Jerusalem has arrived on the internet in the dynamic and
wide-scoping manner that the city deserves, with Jerusalem.com representing
the city as a religious, historical and tourist destination, offering a rich
entry point to the city via hundreds of city guide pages, articles about the
city's ancient and vibrant trends, real-estate opportunities and its own
social network that allows users to share favorite attractions, prayers and
beliefs with each other.

Bought for $750,000, Jerusalem.com is the most expensive domain ever bought
in Israel, highlighting the seriousness with which the site's founders have
approached the endeavor of representing the city as a place worthy of
connecting to.

Jerusalem.com aims to play a major role in strengthening Jerusalem's tourism
and culture industries, which represent significant sectors of the city's
economy, both in terms of the city's condition today and in terms of
potential for ongoing growth.

We invite you to experience firsthand the birth of Jerusalem.com, to peruse
the site's innovative features, and to be introduced with the founder's
vision of making Jerusalem.com to gateway to the center of the world.

Launch date Tuesday, June 23th

For preview: www.Jerusalem.com

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.

Twitter And Iran--How Accurate Is Twitter As A News Medium?

A lot has already been written about the roll that Twitter has played in the dissemination of information about situation in Iran following last week's election. In What if Twitter is leading us all astray in Iran?, Joshua Kucera raises the question about the reliability of that information:

Here are a few of the things that we’ve “learned” the last few days about the Iranian elections and their aftermath:

— 3 million people protested Monday in Tehran
— the losing candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was put under house arrest
— the president of the election monitoring committee declared the election invalid on Saturday

These are just a handful of data points that have been shooting around the Internet, via Twitter or the opposition-friendly blogs. And all have been instrumental in building a public opinion case against the Iranian government for undercounting the support for Mousavi.

But there is a problem:

The problem is, none of them appear any longer to be true. The crowd was in the hundreds of thousands, most newspapers reported. Mousavi’s own wife said he wasn’t under house arrest Sunday, and Monday he appeared in person at the protest. And if the president of the election monitoring commission has gone over to the opposition, no serious reporter has reported it.

Is it possible that if instead of relaying information about the unrest in Iran--Twitter is causing or encouraging it it? As Kucera points out, thanks to new Twitter, Facebook and blogs--rumors can acquire a much longer lifespan.

Andrew Sullivan responds to Kucera's criticism about the size of the crowd in the Monday demonstration in Tehran--after all, Kucera's link is to Sullivan's report blog which quotes that tweet. But to defend that number, Sullivan refers to an article in Time Magazine:

And although the Interior Ministry kept broadcasting a communiqué warning that no permit had been issued for the rally, 2 million to 3 million Iranians from a broad cross section of society converged on Freedom Square to demand a recount.

The only problem is that no source is quoted--so as far as Sullivan knows, the writer of that article is getting that peace of information from the same source Sullivan did: Twitter. In fact, Sullivan himself admits right afterwards:

Most news outlets reported the crowds were in the hundreds of thousands, but we have no way of knowing the truth.

The bottom line:

As we have said many, many times, you should read the tweets, and any other information coming out of Iran, very provisionally.

Actually there are two issues regarding Twitter and the demonstrations in Iran: organizing and focusing the demonstrations in Iran and bringing information out of Iran. According to The Washington Post:

"Twitter's impact inside Iran is zero," said Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles. "Here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look . . . you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves."

However, an Iranian-American activist in Washington said that tweets from a handful of students have been instrumental in getting information to people outside Iran. She spoke on condition of anonymity citing concern that authorities in Tehran could block her from receiving transmissions.

Yet, the article goes on to point out that though some of the information coming out of Iran via Twitter has been verified, there have been reports that have been either unverifiable or have been debunked altogether. It is the writer--not the technology--that determines the veracity of the information.

Emphasizing the question about how effective Twitter is in Iran, Ben Smith at Politico notes that the number of people following the official Mousavi Twitter feed is kind of low. Currently, there are only 14, 667 people following it.

Maybe after the situation in Iran resolves itself, it may be possible to evaluate this dual functionality of Twitter and how effective it is. In the meantime, Twitter is providing access to information that is inaccessible any other way.

Technorati Tag: Twitter and Iranian Election.

NOW Can We Agree That Iran's Nuclear Program Is A Bad Thing? (Updated)

In discussing last week's elections in Iran (in Don't Call What Happened in Iran Last Week an Election), Christopher Hitchens recalls what he witnessed while in Lebanon:

Mention of the Lebanese elections impels me to pass on what I saw with my own eyes at a recent Hezbollah rally in south Beirut, Lebanon. In a large hall that featured the official attendance of a delegation from the Iranian Embassy, the most luridly displayed poster of the pro-Iranian party was a nuclear mushroom cloud! Underneath this telling symbol was a caption warning the "Zionists" of what lay in store. We sometimes forget that Iran still officially denies any intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet Ahmadinejad recently hailed an Iranian missile launch as a counterpart to Iran's success with nuclear centrifuges, and Hezbollah has certainly been allowed to form the idea that the Iranian reactors may have nonpeaceful applications. This means, among other things, that the vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered their "internal affair." Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad. Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name. [emphasis added]

Following the results of the election and the demonstrations, even those who championed the potential for dialog with Iran have reassessed their opinions--even Roger Cohen. Does anyone still believe that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is not to create nuclear arms?

UPDATE: JammieWearingFool notes an unexpected admission about Iran's plans for a nuclear weapon:

Iran wants the ability to build nuclear weapons to gain a reputation as a major power in the Middle East, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a BBC interview broadcast Wednesday.

Not that the UN will do anything about it.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Even Now, The Washington Post Avoids Mentioning Obama's Arab Friends

If you read the Saturday edition of the Washington Post, you would be forgiven if you came away with the impression that Obama's views on Israel were shaped by his Jewish friends:

several senior White House officials described the president's views on Israeli settlements as years old and not the product of recent events or discussions. "It would be a mistake to suggest that anyone led him to this position," a senior adviser said. "It's one that he generated himself."

In Chicago, long before becoming president, Obama's closest confidants included staunch supporters of Israel whose tough views on the need to stop settlements mirror his current public position. Abner Mikva, an Obama mentor and former law professor, was one of them.

"There has to be realistic talks about how the two states will get along together," Mikva said, describing Obama's thinking on the subject of Middle East peace before being elected to the U.S. Senate. "You can't do that if one state, as you're talking, is picking up more land."

White House aides say the president has been careful to insist that Palestinians must also act to fulfill their responsibilities, such as bolstering security and ending anti-Israeli incitement.

"It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered," Obama said in the Cairo speech.

But his recent language about settlements is the starkest of any U.S. president in three decades, and tougher than most of his public rhetoric since emerging on the national scene.

One of the president's close friends in Chicago, the late Rabbi Arnold Wolf, wrote last year of his disappointment that Obama had often publicly softened his private positions.

Abner Mikva described Obama, with his "yiddishe neshama", as the first Jewish President--a sentiment he apparently shares with Alan Solow, the recently elected chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

In a post about that article, Jennifer Rubin writes, "Left unsaid by the Post is the role played by his close friend Rashid Khalidi."

Martin Kramer also questions the Washington Post's curious ommission:

But how is it possible to mention Wolf and not Rashid Khalidi, Obama's University of Chicago colleague? Not only did Obama famously have his own "conversations" with Khalidi, but Wolf attested that his own conversations with Obama on Israel and the Palestinians were three-way, involving Khalidi. A journalist who interviewed Wolf last year wrote this:

Wolf has impressions about Obama's initial views on Israel more than specifics, and the impression was one of sympathy for the views that he and their mutual friend, Palestinian advocate Rashid Khalidi, expressed to him on Israel - views including the need to pressure Israel to give up the West Bank. In retrospect, he believes that Obama was carefully considering their perspective rather than endorsing it. "When he was listening, we had his ear, but he didn't come down on our side," he reflects. "I think he was listening and learning and thinking."

"Our side," no less. It makes no sense to invoke Wolf's influence without even mentioning Khalidi, because on the question of the West Bank, they were a tag-team.

That's why writing Khalidi out of the story of Obama's view of the settlements is absurd. Back in October, I delivered a lecture suggesting that Khalidi gave Obama his primer on the Middle East. I recently posted it here, for the record. There's nothing in it I would change, and the claim that Obama got his intransigent view of the settlements from exclusively Jewish sources is yet another attempt to sweep Khalidi under the rug.

But Obama apparently was not impressed only by 'staunch supporters of Israel'. He was appreciative of the work of Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, who wrote in March 2007:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

That particular post by Abunimah also features a picture of Obama and his wife sitting with Edward Said and his wife--at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech.

Kramer sees the ommission by Washington Post as an attempt to sweep the issue of Obama's friendship with Khalidi under the carpet.

I think that another possibility is that the Washington Post is trying to sell the idea of applying strong pressure on Israel as a position of "staunch supporters of Israel."

Technorati Tag: Obama and Rashid Khalidi.

Obama's Foolish Consistency In His Dealing With Iran And Israel

In the Washington Post, Robert Kagan examines why Obama is siding with the Iranian regime:

Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid. [emphasis added]

Bottom line, Obama wants normalcy (ie quiet) in the region as opposed to crisis. That is all well and good--but the issue is who has to be sacrificed in order to make that happen. In order to have some semblance of normalcy in Iran, Obama prefers Ahmadinejad. Supporting the opposition with just extend the tension.

That seems to be Obama's 'enlightened' view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as well. Bottom line, Obama wants some degree of normalcy (ie quiet) there as well. The most efficient way of doing that is to sacrifice Israel's interests (if not Israel itself) in order to make that happen. For Obama, siding with Israel will only extend the tension--the Palestinians, with the backing of the Arab countries, will continue the crisis indefinitely. Obama wants normalcy with those Arab countries and is willing to follow their lead, even going so far as to back the Saudi Initiative. But Israel can be pressured--in the interests of the region as a whole, naturally.

Obama's reaction to both the opposition in Iran and on Israel reflect the single goal of quiet in the area. That policy results is something of a contradiction, as Michael Ledeen points out:

The president says he doesn't want to "meddle." Aside from the fact that he unhesitatingly meddles in Israel, how can any American remain aloof from this sort of thing?

Or as J.G. Thayer puts it:

Thus far, it seems that the guiding principle of this administration is summed up in a single, concise phrase: “Treat your enemies like friends, and your friends like enemies.” It’s doubtful the plan was envisioned as such, but that is the impression they’re giving so far.

Obama is just going with whatever works.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Iran.

Reverend Wright: Image Is Everything

On the topic of Reverend Wright and his claim that "them Jews" were keeping him for seeing the president, Jay Nordlinger writes:

I got a quite interesting letter from a regular and sharp reader:

Jay,

When I heard that the Reverend Wright said, “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me,” my first thought was, “And this guy went to Central High!” Central High was Philadelphia’s elite public school for boys. It’s still an elite public school, but now it lets girls in. Wright’s mother was the vice principal of Girls’ High, Central High’s counterpart. He grew up in a beautiful, leafy integrated neighborhood. There’s no way he was ever permitted to say “them Jews” or “them” anything else, and certainly not “ain’t.” And when he went there, Jews were probably a majority at Central High.

It’s funny what kind of persona the guy has adopted.
Yup. So often, people choose what they want to be when they grow up. And sometimes they don’t choose wisely.

And others choose very wisely and become president.

Technorati Tag: Reverend Wright.

Jimmy Carter Or The EU--Choose Your Poison (Updated)

Jimmy Carter was in the Middle East again, and as expected went to Gaza to pay his respects to Hamas:

Mr Carter held three hours of talks with Ismail Haniyeh, the de facto Prime Minister of Hamas-controlled Gaza, and other senior figures in the Palestinian movement yesterday after issuing a ringing appeal for an end to the two-year blockade which, he said, had treated Gaza's 1.5 million people "more like animals than human beings".

Elder of Ziyon has a post with some pictures to illustrate just how little Carter actually knows about Gaza.

I suppose we should just be thankful that Carter still wants to stick with the the '3 preconditions':

Earlier, at a UN Relief and Works Agency event north of Gaza City, Mr Carter – who has campaigned for peace in the Middle East since he brokered the talks which led to the 1978 treaty between Egypt and Israel – said he had urged Hamas to accept the three conditions, reiterated by Mr Obama in Cairo a fortnight ago, of recognising Israel, renouncing violence and abiding by previous agreements.

Of course, recognizing Israel will not entail recognizing it as a Jewish state.

The other 2 conditions are also open to (re)interpretation.

And let's not forget that Hamas has 2 leaders--one in Gaza and one in Damascus.

Carter didn't forget either:

Mr Carter said the Damascus-based Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, had told him he would accept an agreement with Israel for a Palestinian state, negotiated by the moderate Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, if it was approved in a referendum. Mr Carter insisted that the Arab Peace Initiative – which offers pan-Arab recognition in return for a Palestinian state on 1967 borders – was now being "considered on all sides".

Maybe we should wait a few days first to give Meshal time to deny the report.

In any case, we see once again that the Saudi Peace initiative that Obama denied last year he was considering, is serving as the framework for the peace deal he is aiming for [see history here].

And yet with all of that, the EU has decided to go one step further than Carter in dealing with Hamas:

In what is perceived in Jerusalem as a mistaken effort to give Hamas room to maneuver, the EU's 27 foreign ministers, in a statement issued Monday, did not call, as in the past, for Hamas to forswear terrorism, recognize Israel or accept previous PLO agreements with Israel.

Government sources in Jerusalem said France led the efforts to keep what has become known as the Quartet's three conditions on Hamas from being included in the European Council's conclusions on the Middle East peace process.

Remember when Sarkozy was considered a good friend of Israel?
And what is the reason for the EU's largesse?

According to diplomatic sources, the French were trying to give Hamas "a way out," and felt that if the conditions were not always mentioned every statement, it might give the Islamist organization a chance to soften its positions and perhaps give a boost to Egyptian-brokered talks between Fatah and Hamas.

The European foreign ministers issued another statement regarding Israel on Tuesday, this one following the EU Association meeting the day before with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which they essentially said the decision from last year to upgrade ties with Israel would remain in place, but that no steps toward implementing it would be taken at this point.

Go figure: the EU is trying to give Hamas a way out, but will not allow Israel a way in.

One of the things standing in the way of making the two state solution is the enmity between Hamas and Fatah. Abbas--and apparently the EU--will do whatever it takes to bridge that divide. They will be so happy to hear that Carter has made progress on that score.

Meanwhile, how long before the US also drops the 3 preconditions?

UPDATE: Oops! It looks like Carter wasn't finished once he left the Middle East:

The Obama Administration should remove Hamas from the terrorist list, former President Jimmy Carter told media following his visit to Gaza today. He said he plans on pushing for the change when he meets with U.S. officials on Thursday to discuss his latest trip to the Middle East.

I thought that Carter had been outdone by the EU.

I was wrong.

Technorati Tag: Jimmy Carter and EU and Hamas.

"The Two-State To Nowhere: Another Futile Attempt At Appeasement "

Posted with permission of the author.

The Two-State To Nowhere: Another Futile Attempt At Appeasement

by Dr. Alex Grobman

“There is reason to believe that [the president] cherished the illusion that presumably he, and he alone, as head of the United States, could bring about a settlement –if not a reconciliation—between Arabs and Jews. I remember muttering to myself as I left the White House after hearing the President discourse in rambling fashion about Middle Eastern Affairs, ‘I‘ve read of men who thought they might be King of the Jews and other men who thought they might be King of the Arabs, but this is the first time I ‘ve listened to a man who dreamt of being King of both the Jews and Arabs.’”1

Herbert Feis, a State Department economic advisor, did not say this about President Obama’s address in Cairo in June 2009, but after Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, in February 1945.

Roosevelt wanted the Arabs to allow thousands of Jews from Europe to immigrate to Palestine to which Ibn Saud responded, “Arabs would choose to die rather than yield their land to Jews.”2

George Antonius, an Arab nationalist, reiterated this point when he said, “no room can be made in Palestine for a second nation except by dislodging or exterminating the nation in possession.”3

Attempts to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict regularly fail because of the refusal to acknowledge that this dispute has never been about borders, territory or settlements, but about the Arabs refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. “The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders, but touches on the very existence of the Zionist entity,” declared an Arab spokesman.4

Unlike the Nazis who carefully concealed the Final Solution, Hamas and the Palestine Authority openly avow their intentions in their Charter and Covenant and in the Arab media which is available in English on the Internet on MEMRI and the Palestinian Media Watch.

For Hamas liberating all of Palestine to establish an Islamic state requires a holy war against Israel. Anyone daring to sign away even “a grain of sand in Palestine in favor of the enemies of God…who have seized the blessed land” should have their “hand be cut off.”5

Coercing Israel to make concessions and accept a two-state solution will not bring peace to the region. One-sided concessions have convinced the Arabs of the rightness of their policies and the efficacy of using violence to cleanse the country of Jews and Christians.

What compelling reason do Arabs have to stop launching rockets indiscriminately into Israeli cities, refuting the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, destroying artifacts and Jewish holy sites, denying the Holocaust, dehumanizing Jews in their media, textbooks, educational system, political discourse, religious sermons by portraying them as Satan, sons of apes and pigs, a cancer, and using children as homicide bombers, if the West does not hold them accountable?

Instead of demanding that Arabs cease their incitements and attacks, the U.S issues meaningless statements of condemnation, and then grants them foreign aid, arms and military training.

The U.S. pressures Israel to make goodwill gestures in “peace negotiations,” yet Israel has never been the aggressor. Is there any example in history where a victor withdraws from territory when the defeated party does not sue for peace, admits there will never be any reconciliation, declares they will not concede the victor’s right to exist, and labors relentlessly to destroy him? 5

When Israel opens her border check-points as an act of goodwill, the Arabs dispatch homicide bombers to maim and kill Israeli civilians. After Arab terrorists are released from Israeli prisons, they revert to murdering Jews.

Comparing the plight of the Arabs with that of African Americans is a distortion of history and demeans the experiences of the millions of Africans who were brutally abducted from their homes, transported under inhuman conditions aboard slave ships and exposed to torture, murder and rape.

Nothing remotely like this has ever occurred with the Arabs in Israel. Had the Arabs not attacked the Jews before and after Israel was established, they would not be displaced persons today.

If we are to learn from history, we must transmit what actually transpired and not allow those with their own agenda or ignorance to obscure what occurred.

Whether it is naiveté, self-delusion or hubris, a number of U.S. presidents and diplomats have assumed that their powers of persuasion could modify fiercely held beliefs about the sanctity of Arab land. Such reasoning has consistently failed.

Those claiming that Jews have a moral obligation to cede land to the Arabs do not understand Israel’s legal right to exist as a Jewish state. That right was granted by the British in the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and later recognized under international law at the San Remo Conference on April 24, 1920 by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan (who defeated the Ottoman Empire and divided up the empire), the Mandate for Palestine and the Franco—British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as the Jewish National Home.

There are no comparable legal documents conferring the same right on the Arabs living in Palestine at that time or since. 6 Which other country would relinquish land that is legally theirs to anyone, let alone to a people engaged in internecine warfare, who cannot even live in peace among themselves?

The West has not learned that Israel represents all that is abhorred about the U.S. and Europe—a free and open democratic society, and an ethical system encouraging individual expression and independence.7 Through appeasement the U.S. and the West have enabled the Arabs to continue what Ben-Gurion called a “permanent war” against the Jewish people.

This latest drive to establish separate Arab and Jewish states will fail because as Yasser Arafat said, “We don’t want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else. What you call peace is peace for Israel…. For us it is shame and injustice. We shall fight on to victory. Even for decades, for generations, if necessary.”8

-----

1. Herbert Feis, The Birth of Israel: The Tousled Diplomatic Bed (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1969):16-17.

2. Charles E. Bohlen, Witness to History 1929-1969 (New York: W.W. Norton, Inc. 1973):203-204.

3. George Antonius, The Arab Awakening, the Story of the Arab National

Movement (New York: Capricorn Books, 1965): 412.

4. (Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986), quoted in Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature: A Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery (New York: Gefen Publishing House, 1999):78.

5. Jacob L.Talmon, Israel Among The Nations (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 172.

6. Lloyd George, The Truth About The Peace Treaties vol. II, (London: Gollancz Ltd, 1938),1149-1201; Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008): 136-147, 493.

7. Ruth Wisse, “The UN’s Jewish Problem,” Weekly Standard (April 8, 2002).

8. Oriana Fallaci, “An Oriana Fallaci Interview: Yasir Arafat,” The New Republic (November 16, 1974), 10.

Dr. Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books including Nations United How The UN Undermines Israel and The West and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Two State Solution.

Only The Palestinians Can Say No (Updated)

Despite the overall positive reaction to Netanyah's speech on Sunday, demilitarization of the proposed state is a sticking point:

U.S. officials reacted skeptically Monday to an Israeli proposal that the United States and other world powers guarantee that a new nation of Palestine remain demilitarized as a condition of its statehood.

Actually, it sounds as if the issue is not skepticism--the issue is that the Palestinian Arabs will say no:

We take the security of Israel very seriously, but we need a solution that works, and this would be very difficult for the Palestinians to swallow," said an official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy. American officials "are a long way away from the point where we'd be talking about this kind of arrangement."

He noted that Netanyahu provided no specifics about what would be a complex task.

In other words, Palestinian Arabs have the option of saying no. Israel, on the other hand, does not. So when it comes to settlements, all Obama has to say is that the US is opposed and Israel is supposed to jump through hoops.

The same anonymous official complains that Bibi does not give specifics about how demilitarization would be done--when is the last time you heard Obama give the specifics on how they are going to guarantee Israel's security?

Because no one has pinned down the US on what constitutes Israel's security concerns, this official can easily brush aside the threat of a new Palestinian state with its own army to Israel. The lesson of Gaza is ignored.

It must be nice to be able to throw a tantrum and get what you want.

When you're a two year old.

UPDATE: Apparently the proposal of a demilitarized Palestinian state has been proposed before--both by the US and by a respected Palestinian:

But Netanyahu’s proposal, for all the hype, is nothing new. Both teams and the referees have at one time or another endorsed the idea. A demilitarized Palestinian state, after all, was a cornerstone of the Oslo Process—one of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak’s four “red lines” for final-status negotiations at the July 2000 Camp David summit. The Palestinian moderate Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, called for the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state as far back as January 2002 [read his comment in a PBS interview in 2004]. In the U.S., Gen. James Jones, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy to the Annapolis conference in 2007, concluded that a future Palestinian state would require third-party troops—from NATO, for example—to secure Israel’s security.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians.

Oh-Oh: A Palestinian Agreement To Demilitarize Their State Is Not Legally Binding

Thank you to My Right Word, who pointed me to this paper.

Louis Rene Beres, author on International Law, explains--Why Palestinian Demilitarization Won’t Work [PDF]--addressing Netanyahu's speech where he allowed for a second Palestinian state, with one of the conditions being the demilitarization of the proposed state.

According to Professor Beres, such a condition would not be legally binding:

Here is the core of the demilitarization argument problem: International law would not necessarily require Palestinian compliance with pre-state agreements concerning the use of armed force. From the standpoint of international law, enforcing demilitarization upon a sovereign state of Palestine would be problematic. As a
now independent state, any preindependence compacts would not bind Palestine, even if these agreements were to include fully codified Quartet assurances. Because true treaties can be binding only upon states,5 an agreement between a non-state Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and an authentic sovereign state(Israel) 6 could also have little real effectiveness.7

Now, what if the government of “Palestine” were actually willing to consider itself bound by the pre-state, non-treaty agreement, i.e., if it were willing to treat this agreement as if it were a real treaty? Even in these relatively favorable circumstances, the new Arab government would still have ample pretext to identify
various grounds for lawful “treaty” termination. It could, for example, withdraw from the “treaty” because of what it would regard as a “material breach”, an alleged violation by Israel that seemingly undermined the object or purpose of the agreement. Or it could point toward what international law calls a “fundamental change of circumstances” (rebus sic stantibus).8 In this connection, if a Palestinian state declared itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers – perhaps even from the forces of other Arab armies – it could lawfully end its sworn commitment to remain demilitarized.

There is another method by which a treaty-like arrangement obligating a new Palestinian state to accept demilitarization could quickly and legally be invalidated after independence. The usual grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts also apply under international law to treaties. This means
that the new state of Palestine could point to alleged errors of fact or to duress as perfectly appropriate grounds for terminating the agreement.

Moreover, any treaty is void if, at the time it was entered into, it conflicts with a “peremptory” rule of general international law (jus cogens) – a rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as one from which “no derogation is permitted.”9 Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to “self-defense”10 is certainly such a peremptory rule,11 Palestine, depending upon its particular form of authority, could be entirely within its right to abrogate a treaty that had compelled its demilitarization.

Thomas Jefferson, an American President who had read Epicurus, Cicero and Seneca, as well as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Holbach, Helvetius and Beccaria, wrote interestingly about obligation and international law. While affirming that “Compacts between nation and nation are obligatory upon them by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts...” he also acknowledged the following: “There are circumstances which sometimes excuse the nonperformance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation.” Very specifically, Jefferson continued, if performance of contractual obligation becomes “self-destructive” to a party, “...the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others.”12

Here it must be remembered that, historically, demilitarization is a principle applied to various “zones”,13 not to the entirety of emergent states. Hence, a new state of Palestine might have yet another legal ground upon which to evade compliance with preindependence commitments to demilitarization. It could be alleged, inter alia, that these commitments are inconsistent with traditional or Westphalian14 bases of authoritative international law – bases found in treaties and conventions, international custom,15 and the general principles of law recognized by “civilized nations”16 – and that therefore they are commitments of no binding character.

Charles Dickens wrote, "the law is a ass."

I wonder what he would say about international law.

Beres has a recommendation with far-reaching consequences:

What does all of this mean, for the demilitarization “remedy” and for Israeli security in general? Above all, it positively demands that Israel make rapid and far-reaching changes in the manner in which it conceptualizes the critical continuum of cooperation and conflict. Israel, ridding itself of wishful thinking, of always hoping, hoping too much, should recognize immediately the zero-sum calculations of its enemies, and should begin to recognize itself that the struggle in the Middle East must still be fought overwhelmingly at the conflict end of the range.23 The struggle, in other words, must sometimes be conducted, however reluctantly and painfully, in zero-sum terms. Understood in terms of international law and world order, 24 this means, inter alia, an occasional willingness in Jerusalem to accept the right25 and corollary obligations of “anticipatory self-defense”. 26 [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing [PDF].

Regardless of how such an agreement to demilitarize the proposed Palestinian state is arranged, it would not be binding. This is not an issue of whether the Palestinian Authority would keep its word or not--as in Oslo and the Road Map, it is simply a question of it is legally binding. Under those circumstances, what is arguably the biggest obstacle to the creation of a second Palestinian state is no obstacle at all. The law would be on the side of the Palestinian Authority.

Professor Beres concludes:

It follows, especially as both Fatah and Hamas continue to regard all of Israel as “occupied Palestine”, that Mr. Louis René Beres 4 Netanyahu will ultimately have to look elsewhere for viable elements of real peace in the region. What is certain is that he will not find these elements in any conceivable plan for Palestinian “demilitarization”.

I imagine that by the same token Israel should examine to what degree it is held accountable--according to International Law--to some of its agreements, based on the same criteria Professor Beres lists.

They could start with the issue of the settlements.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Two State Solution.

Steven Plaut On The "Then Maybe They Will" Doctrine

In The Silly and Harmful Fantasy of "Two States for Two Peoples", Steven Plaut detects a principle that guides Israeli policy:

For the past 30 years the Israeli political establishment has been prisoner to
the "Then Maybe They Will" doctrine. Every major policy decision made by the
government has reflected the power of wishful thinking and faith in the
make-pretend. Here is a brief recapitulation of the doctrine:

If Israel gives Sinai back to the Egyptians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop the Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda in their state-run media.

If Israel agrees to limited autonomy for Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop seeking Israel's destruction and the world will not try to set up an independent Palestinian Arab terror state.

If Israel provides the Palestinian Authority with arms and funds, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL not be used for terrorist atrocities against Israel.

If Israel grants its Arab citizens affirmative action preferences, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL stop cheering terrorists and seeking the annihilation of Israel and its Jewish population.

If Israel frees thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce violence and not murder any more Jews.

If Israel agrees to hold talks with representatives of the PLO, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL put a stop to Palestinian terrorism.

If Israel allows the Palestinians to hold elections, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not elect Hamas.

If the Palestinians elect Hamas, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not pursue a program of aggression and terrorism against Israel.

If Israel holds talks with terrorists, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL renounce their genocidal ambitions and seek peace.

If Israel conducts a unilateral withdrawal from all of southern Lebanon and allows Hezb'allah terrorists to station rockets on the border, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not launch any of them.

If Israel sits back while the Syrians exert their hegemony over Lebanon,
THEN MAYBE THEY WILL rein in Hezb'allah and stop border attacks on Israel.

If Israel refrains from retaliating against Hezb'allah terrorists after
they murder captive Israeli soldiers in cold blood, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not seek to kidnap any more soldiers.

If Israel agrees to one cease-fire after another with the Arabs, THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL eventually comply with one.

If Israel allows Arabs in Israel to build illegally, including on public
lands, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL become pro-Israel and moderate.

If Israel agrees to the stationing of UN troops in Lebanon, THEN MAYBE
THEY WILL actually do something to stop terror attacks on Israel.

If Israel ignores Hezb'allah border violations, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL come to an end.

If Israel lets the Muslims control the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, THEN
MAYBE THEY WILL respond with friendship and moderation.

If Israel expels all Jews from Gaza as a gesture of friendship to the
Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL reciprocate with friendship toward the Jews.

If Israel turns the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL not use it as a base for terror attacks against Israel.

If Israel turns the other cheek after Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL stop being fired.

If Israel allows the Palestinian Authority to control parts of the West
Bank, THEN MAYBE THE PALESTINIANS WILL not fire rockets at Jews the same way they do from Gaza.

If Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria THEN MAYBE THE SYRIANS WILL seek peace and reject the idea of using the Heights to attack Israel again.

If Israel agrees to place its neck in the Oslo/Road Map/Saudi Plan noose,
THEN MAYBE THE ARABS WILL not pull the rope.

If Israel officially agrees in principle to let the Palestinians have a
state, THEN MAYBE THEY WILL abandon their agenda of annihilating Israel.

Of course, much of this is the result of the cajoling of the US, but considering the new stance of the Obama administration, Israel needs to resist US pressure and do what it needs to in order to protect its security.

No 'maybes' about it.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Could A Palestinian State Become Our Next Vietnam? (Updated)

David Bedein writes that putting aside any dissatisfaction Netanyahu's coalition or the Palestinian Arabs may have with what he said, one of the conditions Bibi mentioned is a direct challenge to US policy:

And Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinian State be demilitarized clashes with President Obama's current allocation of funds and American military personnel to train the new Palestinian army. The American justification is that the Palestinian soldiers are being trained to fight Hamas, but the Palestinian army is now in negotiation with Hamas with the goal of forming a joint command.

Let's think this through:

o Obviously the Palestinian Authority is far to weak, nor is it popular enough, to deal with Hamas on their own. Some kind of military presence is necessary. If Netanyahu seriously wants to see a demilitarized Palestinian state--that means that Israel will continue to do the policing for the forseeable future. No matter what the official status of the proposed Palestinian state, having the IDF patrol the streets is something that the Palestinian Arabs cannot be expected to swallow.

o At the very least, the Palestinians will ask for some other country--or the UN--to police the area. That is an idea--considering the failure of the UN in policing Southern Lebanon--that will be equally unacceptable to Israel.

o The one country that would be acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinians would be the US. Thus US soldiers would end up keeping the peace in the West Bank.

Imagine the irony if the end result of Obama's intensive intervention in the Middle East ended up with a new Vietnam/Iraq for the US...

UPDATE: Caroline Glick sees it differently:

The only way to ensure that a Palestinian state is demilitarized is to send in forces to demilitarize it. Obviously the Americans won't take such a step. In Gaza, a militarized Palestinian state already exists and the Americans have no intention of demilitarizing it for us. As for Judea and Samaria, today, the only thing the emerging Palestinian state has to show for itself is its US-built army.

The only force that would ensure a Palestinian state (or states) stays demilitarized is the IDF. But by appointing the US the guarantor of its demilitarized status, Netanyahu is inviting the US to lie and so make it impossible for us to take the steps necessary to ensure that the Palestinians lack the means to threaten the country. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Netanyahu.

Nachum Segal Interviews Malcolm Hoenlein: June 12, 2009

Nachum Segal interviews Malcolm Hoenlein on Fridays:

Nachum interviewed Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called in live for the latest Weekly Update. Nachum and Malcolm began this week's Update with a discussion about the terrible shooting incident at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC this week. They also discussed elections in the Middle-East, including Iran's election going on today. They covered several other important issues including: nuclear activity in Iran and how it will be affected by the election, Prime Minister Netanyahu's upcoming speech, the election of new President Ali Abdussalam Treki, a three-time Permanent Representative of Libya, to the United Nations Assembly, and much more. Click the link to listen.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Palestinians: Negotiating The Price--Not The Peace

Fatah member Ahmed Qureia, who heads the Palestinian negotiating team with Israel, has an interview with Haaretz.

In response to a question about borders of a potential Palestinian state, Qureia responds:

If they want peace, they should pay the price.

When Israel won the wars that the Arabs engaged in against her, Israel inevitably ended up 'paying' for that victory with land. The idea of "Land for Peace" became the theme for any peace negotiations. As a result, the Arabs never had to pay the consequence for those wars.

As Amir Taheri writes:

For a war to be won, it is not enough for one side to claim victory. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. Yet in the Arab-Israeli wars, the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory, while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat. Why? Because each time the United Nations had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.

Now it seems that the Palestinian Arabs are addicted to the "Land for Peace" concept--worse: they see it as a one-way street. They get the concessions they want and then there will be peace.

Apparently the "Land for Peace" concept has changed. When Queria says "If they want peace, they should pay the price"--he is talking about blackmail.

And Obama is the pickup man.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Palestinians.

If Cairo Speech Reflects Obama's True Feelings, What Was He Saying At AIPAC?

“You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me.’ But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.”
Rashid Khalidi on Barack Obama

But we are becoming more sure all the time.

According to The Washington Post, the Cairo speech that Obama gave on June 4th represents his actual feelings, and that rather than being the result of talks with his advisers:

several senior White House officials described the president's views on Israeli settlements as years old and not the product of recent events or discussions. "It would be a mistake to suggest that anyone led him to this position," a senior adviser said. "It's one that he generated himself."

Towards an understanding of Obama's true position on Israel's settlements, Jennifer Rubin compares 3 different Obama speeches over the past 3 years: before AIPAC while a senator in 2007, before AIPAC after clinching the nomination in 2008, and in Cairo in 2009.

AIPAC 2007

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

AIPAC 2008

Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.

...The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process — not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That's what I commit to do as president of the United States.

Cairo 2009

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

On the differences between the 2 AIPAC speeches and the Cairo speech Rubin notes:

It is hard to escape the conclusion that he told a very different story in 2008 to get elected and, once in office, sprung the most antagonistic approach to Israel and the most timid toward Iran of any president in recent memory. Those who bought his story in 2008 were had. And those who vouched for him should be embarrassed.

The Washington Post article concludes with an account of Obama in Cleveland in 2008:

"This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I'm not out of school here," he said in a transcript published by JTA, a news service on Jewish issues. "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel. . . . If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress."

Apparently, we are still waiting for that honest dialog.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: June 14, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

End of Week Review: June 14, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● Chaos In Iran: What Does It Mean To U.S. and Israel: Iran's official election results, the re-election of President Ahmadinejad, has caused thousands of Iranians to take to the streets. For reports on the street demonstrations see here and here.One Jerusalem has been in touch with experienced Iranian reporters who are... (read more)

● Are Jews Encouraging Arab Only Sections of Jerusalem?: Over the years, Jerusalem has been at the core of every dispute between Israel and its neighbors, From the founding of the Jewish State in 1948 until the war in 1967 Israeli Jews and Christians were barred from the Old City... (read more)

● Jerusalem Is At The Heart of Zionism: Today, in a speech to a small group of Israel supporters, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon repeated the words of a Palestinian leader who spoke approvingly of the two-state formula because once Israel gets out of Jerusalem "the... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Palestinians Respond To Netanyahu Speech By Crying For Obama

[Note: Full text of Netanyahu's speech can be found here]

I've always thought it was a cop out when newspapers claim that the proof that they were accurate is that both sides of an issue are angry at them.

The question then is what to make of Netanyahu's speech which seemed to do just that.

Arutz Sheva summarized both the reaction and the speech itself like this:

Kadima Pleased with Speech; Coalition MKs have Mixed Feelings

Members of Knesset from across the political spectrum reacted Sunday night to a speech by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu outlining his diplomatic goals. Netanyahu called for the creation of a "Palestinian state" beside Israel, but also insisted that the PA first recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which it has so far refused to do, and that it agree to disarm.

In addition, Netanyahu said Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel.

...Responses from the nationalist camp were largely negative.

Mixed reactions are about what you would expect, considering the concession Netanyahu made on the creation of a second Palestinian state (sure to anger the right) while attaching conditions (sure to anger the left).

Maybe the most interesting response came from the Palestinian Arabs. Of course, they were angry--Netanyahu did not give them a Palestinian state on a silver platter. But more than that, it became clearer that they preferred for Obama to do all of the dirty work for them.

You get a hint of that from spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah:

Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions.

Till now, the only 2 'negotiating' modes the Palestinian Arabs seemed to have at their disposal were threats and demands for concessions--but now, they have a new third negotiating tactic: ask Obama to make Netanyahu give in.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Some of Abbas's top advisors accused Netanyahu of "burying the peace process" and said the ball was now in the court of US President Barack Obama.

..."Netanyahu's speech is a blow to Obama before it's a blow to the Palestinians and Arabs," commented an aide. "It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed."

The ball is in Obama's court? Aren't the Palestinian Arabs playing this game too?

That attitude is not surprising--it is what Jackson Diehl wrote about in his interview with Abbas:

He [Obama] has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.' "

Of course in the meantime, Abbas and the entire leadership of the Palestinian Authority plan to do absolutely nothing to further their cause:

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life."

Usually you expect that the work towards the building of a state would bring out the best qualities in people. The biographies of the founders of the re-established state of Israel are filled with accounts of their hard work, leadership and sacrifice.

Contrast that with the Palestinian Arabs, who clearly want to have a state handed to them with no work, no concessions, and no sacrifice. No wonder that living off of the funding of the West is considered "a normal life."

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Two State Solution.

Catch Netanyahyu Speech Here

Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to give his speech at 1:00pm from Bar Ilan University.

You can watch a direct feed here.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Two State Solution.

US Treats Great Britain As Shabbily As Israel! (Updated)

Apparently, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, Obama does not care who the ally is.

Currently, Obama is pushing the idea of a two state solution, which would create a second Palestinian state next to Israel. Though there have been the usual promises of consideration for Israel's 'security', that issue has never been detailed and fleshed out.

Israel is just expected to accept the presence of terrorists and like it.

Kind of like Great Britain.

Word is getting out that Obama's plan to transplant Uighers (Chinese Muslims) from Gitmo to Bermuda--a UK protectorate--was done without telling Great Britain in advance.

According to the BBC:

A senior US official has told the BBC Washington decided not to tell London ahead of time about a deal to resettle four Guantanamo detainees in Bermuda. …

The unnamed senior official also told the BBC that Washington was attempting to shield the UK from Chinese anger. …

Pressed on whether the US had told the British government, an unnamed state department official was quoted as saying: “We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane.”

Now a senior US official has told the BBC it was a deliberate decision not to consult London on the resettlement, after other countries came under pressure from China not to accept the Uighurs.

In a highly unusual move, a senior US official said Washington opted to keep details of the deal from London until the last minute to enable Britain to deny all knowledge of the deal and thus avoid China’s anger, says the BBC’s Washington correspondent Kim Ghattas.

Ed Morrissey writes:

It’s a highly unusual move, all right. I don’t recall the last time an ally sent trained terrorists into a territory for which the other ally had responsibility for security without their permission. Why? Because it hasn’t ever happened before now.

So, to our British friends: how does it feel to have Obama make security decisions about your territory without bothering to consult you at all?

As with the issue of creating a second Palestinian state filled with members of Fatah and Hamas next to Israel, Obama is only doing this to Great Britain for their own good. When it comes to resolving a terrorist problem, Obama has no problem riding roughshod over allies.

UPDATE: J.G. Thayer writes about Obama's pattern of dissing Great Britain:

But Obama seems to have his heart set on “restoring” the relationship we enjoyed with the British up through the American Civil War, when they were supportive of the Confederacy.

First up, Obama packed up and shipped back a bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office for nearly a decade.

Then, during a state visit from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama set aside the tradition of meaningful, thoughtful, symbolic gifts and gave Brown a set of great American movies on DVD — in a format incompatible with British DVD players. Along with those coasters, Obama tossed in some stuff for Brown’s kids — a couple of models from the White House gift shop.

Then later, when Obama visited England, he presented Queen Elizabeth with her very own iPod. Fortunately, it was preloaded with show tunes, making it an appropriate accompaniment for the more substantial gift, a coffee table book of songs by Rodgers and Hart and autographed by Rodgers.

Earlier this month, during the observation of the anniversary of D-Day, all the Allied nations gathered to pay their respects to that momentous effort. Oddly enough, the one current head of state who actually served in uniform during World War II — the selfsame Elizabeth II, who was a truck driver and mechanic in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, entering as the equivalent of a 2nd Lieutenant and ending her career as the equivalent of a Captain — was left off the guest list. Obama and the French each blamed one another, with Obama insisting on her being invited. In the end, she stayed home and sent Prince Charles.

Then this past week, the Obama administration finally figured out what to do with the Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay: pay Bermuda to take a bunch of them off our hands.

Of course, it might have been nice if someone had remembered — or cared — that Bermuda is a British colony, and its foreign relations are handled out of London. London is not amused. Playing ball with Obama might cost the Bermudan governor his job.

The United States was born out of bloody rebellion from England, and we had to reassert our independence at the dawn of the 19th century, in a conflict that saw England seize and burn the White House. It took about a century after the American Revolution for relations between us and England to grow cordial, and well over another century for the relationship to become one of the greatest friendships in history.

And it seems that Obama is set on restoring our prior relations with England.

Change.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Bermuda and Terrorists.

Jimmy Carter Gushes Over Gush Etzion?

Whoa.

Former US president Jimmy Carter met with Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein in his home on Sunday and issued a surprising declaration of support for the settlement bloc.

"This particular settlement area is not one I envisage ever being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory," Carter said in Goldstein's Neve Daniel home. "This is part of the close settlements to the 1967 line that I think will be here forever."

I don't know who Shaul Goldstein is, but can he invite Obama to his home next?

Technorati Tag: Jimmy Carter.

Time To Admit There Is Anti-Semitism On The Left (Updated)

In European Left More Dangerous for Jews than European Right, Soeren Kern--Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group--writes that though Jewish groups express fear of right wing Anti-Semitism in Europe--

fear of the far right often obscures the indisputable fact that some of the greatest threats to Jews (and Israel) in contemporary Europe stem from the left side of the political aisle. Indeed, it is [4] no big secret that all across the European continent, left-wing intellectuals are playing a crucial role in making anti-Semitism seem respectable. Of course, they are (usually) careful to promote their hatred of Jews only indirectly. Instead, modern anti-Semitism is typically disguised as [5] anti-Zionism and an obsession with Palestinian victimhood.

European Judeophobia often takes on new life forms such as anti-Semitic boycott campaigns and anti-Israel demonstrations, the growing intensity of which the European left not only [6] overlooks or obscures but often actively supports. It is transmitted by Europe’s left-leaning mass media, which not only believes that the systematic demonization of Israel promotes the postmodern and postnational ideological worldview of Europe’s governing class, but also appeases the wrath of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, lest they expose the myth of European socialist multicultural utopia.

As the European left intensifies its common cause with the Palestinian movement, Islam itself has emerged as a major threat to Jewish life in Europe. Although definitive statistics are scarce, most of the acts of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe in recent years seem to be perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Indeed, a 2003 report published by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) attributed the increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe mainly to Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. But those findings were so embarrassing that European left-wing elites [7] quashed the report and commissioned another one. A subsequent EUMC report, which used a more politically correct research methodology, concluded that the “noticeable rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents” was the fault of “young, white Europeans incited by traditional right-wing extremist groups.”

And of course, left wing Anti-Semitism--along with their blaming it on the right--can be found in the US as well. The issue came up again after the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Jennifer Rubin writes that

ranting about Jewish control of the U.S. has been largely the role of the Left as of late. It doesn’t make good New York Times copy to point out that the carping about the Jewish Lobby comes from Harvard professors and Leftwing bloggers. It wasn’t Rush Limbaugh or Fox commentators who said during the campaign that John McCain “surrounded himself with, and [was] funded by Jewish neoconservatives”; such rhetoric came from “respectable” Left and Center-Left publications. Do I think those people are responsible for the Holocaust Museum shooting? No. But the heart of this issue is whether there are those who slowly, bit by bit, make anti-Semitism more acceptable and, therefore, more popular. On that score, the answer is sadly yes.

Lanny Davis, a lawyer and Democratic strategist writes that the right does not have a monopoly on extremists and Anti-Semitic venom:

I am a liberal Democrat on every major issue facing the country - including my early opposition to the Iraq war and the war resolution. Yet when I defended my friend Joe Lieberman when he ran for the Senate in 2006, who has consistently voted in the Senate over 90% with fellow Democrats on every major important liberal issue -- from choice to labor issues to the environment to supporting President Obama's stimulus package and every other major issue -- I was personally attacked and threatened not by the right but by the left. That included anti-semitic comments and threats to my family. [emphasis added]

As opposed to Europe, where the left seems to be busy making Anti-Semitism look respectable (by repackaging it as "criticism" of Israel), in the US, the left is more interested in pinning the label of Anti-Semitism on the right. Either way, Anti-Semitism remains a problem, and it is not helped by the manipulation of the issue by the left--or the right.

UPDATE: William Kristol on a poll that doesn't seem to be getting much attention:

They asked, “How much to blame were the Jews for the financial crisis?”, with respondents given five categories: a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, not at all. Among non-Jewish respondents, 24.6 percent of Americans blamed the Jews a moderate amount or more, and 38.4 percent attributed at least a little level of blame to the group. This alarms Malhotra and Margalit. Or perhaps 75 percent of Americans saying a little or no blame (with 60 percent saying no blame at all) isn’t really too bad.

But what the Stanford and Columbia academics find “somewhat surprising” is the partisan breakdown among the American public: “Democrats were especially prone to blaming Jews: while 32 percent of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4 percent of Republicans did so (a statistically significant difference).” Why is this surprising? Because of “the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition.”

Now you know why the poll is not getting much attention.

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism.

If You Want To Follow What's Happening In Iran After The Election (2 Updates)

Check out:

• Twitter: #iranelection
• Facebook: The Green Revolution - I Support The Iranian Protestors
• Reddit: Twitterers Posting From Inside Iran

UPDATE: David Hazony writes about how quickly events are developing in Iran and some of the resources available to track what is happening there:

Right now events in Iran are moving too fast for proper coverage in the MSM. Even the bloggers are slow compared with the flow through Twitter. You can follow it here, here, and here. There is also a YouTube channel up with a constant flow of video from Iran. Though it is unclear how many of these reports can be confirmed, they include the arrest of at least a hundred organizers and journalists, Moussavi’s being put under house arrest, and a lot of violence, including (again unconfirmed) killings across Iran.

UPDATE II: Michael Totten recommends niacInsight.
Michael Rubin recommends Iran Tracker.
Popular Science has Your Guide To Following The Iranian Election Protests Online

Technorati Tag: Iran Election.

The Downside To Mousavi Winning (3 Updates)

True, Ahmadinejad won the election (supposedly).
However, if Mousavi had won--or even worse, if the current 'revolution' puts him in power--there could be a downside.

For Israel.

With all the talk that Mousavi is the reformer--how could Israel possibly go ahead with plans to disable Iran's nuclear facilities? Imageine the world outcry: here is Iran turning a new leaf with the election of a moderate leader and Israel goes ahead and introduces increased tension just when a moderate leader has taken control!

And now, with the rioting going on against the election of Ahmadinejad--if Mousavi should end up somehow taking power, it would make Israel look even worse to attack.

But Israel is still justified to attack in such a case--regardless of how the media describes Mousavi, he is no reformer.

Con Coughlin writes that just as candidates for the Iranian parliament are vetted to insure that they are ideologically pure--

Now the regime, in the form of the Guardian Council, which is charged with upholding the tenets of Khomeini's revolution, has employed the same tactic ahead of the presidential election: Of the original 475 applicants only four candidates have survived the cull. All of them have revolutionary credentials beyond reproach.

Mousavi has kept those credentials nicely polished. Max Boot writes that Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois has been sending a “Dear Colleague” letter around the House, pointing out among other things that Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is unlikely to change anything about Iran's nuclear program. In his letter, Kirk notes:

On April 27, 2009, Mr. Mousavi told Der Spiegel, “We will not abandon the great achievements of Iranian scientists. I too will not suspend uranium enrichment.” Der Spiegel asked if he would at least consider the outsourcing of uranium enrichment, as proposed by Russia. Mr. Mousavi responded simply, “No.”

On April 13, 2009, Mr. Mousavi told the Financial Times, “No one in Iran would accept suspension. Progress in nuclear technology and its peaceful use is the right of all countries and nations. This is what we have painfully achieved with our own efforts. No one will retreat.”

On April 6, 2009, according to the Associated Press, Mr. Mousavi said, “We have to have the technology,” adding that “the consequences of giving up the country’s nuclear program would be ‘irreparable’ and that the Iranian people support the nuclear program.”

On March 11, 2009, the Washington Post quoted Mr. Mousavi as saying, “The nuclear technology is one of the examples of the achievements of our youth.”

But you can count on the media insisting that Mousavi is a moderate. Elliot Abrams writes in a New York Times op-ed that should Mousavi win, Western leaders would face a problem similar to Israel's--except that the West would actually be taken in:

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defeat would probably be welcomed abroad as a sign that Iran is moving away from his policies, but Iran’s policies aren’t his — they are dictated by Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters in the Revolutionary Guard and Basij paramilitary. In fact, a victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is more likely to change Western policy toward Iran than to change Iran’s own conduct. If the delusion that a new president would surely mean new opportunities to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program strikes Western leaders, solidarity might give way to pre-emptive concessions. [emphasis added]

You cannot but hope that the unrest in Iran against the fixed elections lead to real changes. However, if they actually do lead to Mousavi taking his place as Iranian president, Abrams writes:

it may result in more sensible economic policies and fewer loud calls for the destruction of Israel. But Iran doesn’t hold elections for supreme leader — Ayatollah Ali Khameini will hold that post for the indefinite future...

And Mousavi himself must be recognized for what he is--and Mousavi is no moderate.

UPDATE: Daniel Pipes finds the problematic Mousavi to be reason enough to keep Ahmadinejad:

while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.

UPDATE II: In the comments, Snoopy the Goon refers to an article in Haaretz that agrees, Ahmadinejad Win Actually Preferable For Israel:

in this case, paradoxically, it seems that from Israel's point of view the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually preferable. Not only because "better the devil you know," but because the victory of the pro-reform candidate will paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions.

STG notes "Hmm... a rare unity between left and right wings of (pro-Israeli) political thought."

UPDATE III: And here is Roger L. Simon weighing in with Netanyahu, Obama and the Iranian Coup d’Etat:

On the brink of his speech today, Benjamin Netanyahu is in a complicated position. The ongoing events in Iran have altered the landscape. The ruthless insanity of the mullahs is once again exposed for all the world to see. It would seem obvious - and it is - that Israel has to defend itself from a nuclear armed Iran in the hands of these religious psychopaths.

And yet the same few days have demonstrated once again the idealism and courage of a good percentage of Iran’s youth. Perhaps their candidate Mousavi is not worth their loyalty, but his followers themselves are clearly laudable. Who would want to hurt them?

So even without Mousavi in office--and Ahmadinejad firmly entrenched--Israel would still have to deal with the image of Iran's brave youth fighting the government.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.

Netanyahu's Sunday Address Will Be Streamed Live

From an email from the Israeli Consulate in New York:

PM Netanyahu Gives Major Addresss Sunday

This Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu will give a major policy address detailing his approach to the Palestinian diplomatic track. He will be speaking at 8 PM Israel time (1 PM US Eastern Time) from Bar-Ilan University. At that time, the University will be streaming live video of the address on its website. We will provide further materials after the speech, when they become available.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu.

Israel at the 140 Characters Conference

From an email from the Israeli Consulate in New York:

Israel at the 140 Characters Conference

During the coming week, New York City will be host to the largest gathering yet devoted to Twitter, the 140 Characters Conference, the brainchild of Jeff Pulver. Among the featured presenters is Consul David Saranga (@DavidSaranga), who will discuss how the microblogging service has changed the face of public diplomacy. He'll talk about how the Consulate has embraced new media and social media technologies over the past few years, culminating (thus far) in our presence on Twitter (@IsraelConsulate).

For those of you who can't make it to New World Stages at 340 W. 50th Street on Tuesday morning at 10, you can keep abreast of these and other developments on Twitter. We'll also be sure to post a video of Consul Saranga's speech on our IsRealliblog as soon as we can make it available.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Twitter.

Suddenly, The West Bank Seems A Lot More Like Bermuda

Eli Lake is reporting that Netanyahu's speech on Sunday is going to be something of a concession speech:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a major shift, will accept the notion of a Palestinian state -- a policy pushed by the Obama administration but resisted until now by Mr. Netanyahu, Israeli officials and Americans briefed on the Israeli leader's thinking said.

This comes across as a major concession, considering not only Netanyahu's position till now, but also the backing he has from Israeli opinion, based on a poll that just came out.

However, this concession comes with conditions:

• Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.

• Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.

• A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state's eastern and southern borders.

• Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, a nod to the hawkish side of Mr. Netanyahu's governing coalition that has raised concerns that the Palestinian Authority, which nominally governs the West Bank, does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Of course it remains to be seen whether Netanyahu's conditions fare any better than Sharon's 14 reservations.

Ed Morrissey notes what the consequences would be if Netanyahu's conditions are met:

That won’t mean independence for the Palestinians; it will mean a greater degree of autonomy, but still leave them in a de facto protectorate status, much like we have seen with Bermuda and the UK this week.

Which kind of makes the West Bank and Bermuda comparable.

This week it was announced that Obama wants to send the Muslim Uighurs who are detained at Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda.

John Hinderaker writes at Powerline:

The Obama administration has now found some of the the Uighurs, at least, a home--in Bermuda. As far as I can tell, they will be free there, the only constraint being that they can't come to the U.S. But then, why would they want to? Bermuda may or may not be Heaven on earth, but it's my nominee. If you haven't been there, you should go. But, if I'm not mistaken, you can only buy a round-trip ticket. Bermuda doesn't allow riffraff to hang around. You have to apply to get in if you want to stay for more than a week or two. Except, I guess, if you're an Islamic terrorist who has become an embarrassment to Barack Obama. It is a very weird world in which we live.

Apparently, not only would Bermuda and the West Bank be protectorates (with the US theoretically assuming the position the UK has with Bermuda), but both will be a welcome home to terrorists.

The main difference would be that the West Bank is not a popular vacation spot.

And the advantage of the West Bank: terrorists are already included!

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Two State Solution and West Bank.

Obama's Slanted Speech In Cairo--He Had Help!

Elder of Ziyon notes that one of those who helped Obama with the speech was Dalia Mogahed--a Muslim advisor to Obama.

EOZ notes:

Mogahed works for the Gallup organization, and last year co-wrote a book called "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think." As I noted in my Amazon review, the book is an opinion piece masquerading as science. She knowingly and deceptively cooked the numbers to make it appear as though a much smaller percentage of Muslims support terror and justified 9/11. She wrote articles claiming that her research showed that "only" 7% of Muslims were "radical" when her own numbers showed that over one third of Muslims found 9/11 to be either completely, mostly or partially justified.

Her reputation as an objective expert gives her all sorts of prestige and influence, yet she has been proven to be a fraud in interpreting her own data.

Mogahed, however, is not the only one who helped.

According to the Forward:

Activists for the Palestinian cause, who are now describing President Obama’s outreach speech to the Muslim world as “brilliant” and “brave,” are feeling emboldened by a new sense of openness within the administration. Some even have the satisfaction of having had input in the process of preparing the speech itself. A pro-Palestinian organization was among those invited to take part in a group meeting with White House staff to prepare the June 4 speech.

Now Obama can of course have anyone help him with his speech that he wants. However, based on the historical inaccuracies of his speech (see: At Least Obama Didn't Claim That Muslims Created The Internet! (Updated)) it is a valid point to note the process by which the speech was created.

Those inaccuracies were not only in regards to exaggerations of Muslim achievement--the speech that Obama gave made no mention of the long historical roots of Jews to Israel and gave the impression that the creation of the State of Israel is an accomodation to Jews based on their suffering in the Holocaust. In actuality, the re-establishment of the State of Israel is part of the long history of the Jewish people, who never abandoned the land.

Of course, that fact would hardly fit with the biased narrative that Obama wanted to deliver in his speech in Cairo.

At least Obama was more honest when he spoke to AIPAC. In his openning remarks, Obama said:

Before I begin, I want to say that I know some provocative emails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. A few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President. And all I want to say is - let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening.

Even then, Obama did not get it:

Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

...And I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

Dream of a homeland?
The only dream was the dream to return to the homeland, to Israel. He spent more time talking about the Holocaust than about the connection of Jews to Israel.
That should have been a clue to where Obama really stood. Especially with lines like this:

From decades of struggle and the terrible wake of the Holocaust, a nation was forged to provide a home for Jews from all corners of the world - from Syria to Ethiopia to the Soviet Union.

It's a fine talking point, and sounds good to a Jewish audience, but it obscures the facts.

Taking a closer look, in the light of what Obama is doing now, the AIPAC speech sounds absurd:

And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

...We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.

In light of current events, these remarks come across now as nothing more than shallow rhetoric.

Interestingly, his speech to AIPAC emphasized the suffering of the Jewish people, in his Cairo speech Obama emphasize--and exaggerated--Muslim accomplishment. Granted that there was pandering in both speeches, I think how he pandered to each group is instructive.

Obama may very well have discussed his AIPAC speech in advance with Rahm and Axelrod, but you'd be hard-pressed to find exaggerations in that speech--other than the promises Obama made.

The same is not true of Obama's Cairo speech.

And considering the influence of those Palestinian advisors, we now have one more reason to be wary of what Obama is up to.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Cairo Speech and AIPAC Speech and Dalia Mogahed.

New Poll: Israelis Back Netanyahu On Settlements--But Not Overwhelmingly

IMRA has the results of a poll by Maagar Mochot poll that finds Israelis want Netanyahu to reject Obama's demands on the settlements:

According to various reports in the international press President Obama has
given an ultimatum to Prime Minister Netanyahu according to which Israel
must enter negotiations for the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian
state within two years.

#1 Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's demand of a complete
construction freeze beyond the Green Line - including in Jerusalem and
settlement blocs - including "natural growth"?
No 56% Yes 37% Other replies 7%
(Among Likud voters: No 81% Yes 12% Other 7%)

#2 Is President Obama's demand of a construction halt truly a "make or
break" issue for the United States or if Netanyahu holds his ground there
really won't be a crisis?
Make or break 32% Won't be a crisis 50% Other replies 18%
(Among Likud voters: Make or break 19% Won't be crisis 63% Other 18%)

#3. Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's reported demand that Israel rescind Israeli sovereignty over the Old City and other parts of Jerusalem that are beyond the Green Line as part of an agreement with the Palestinians?
No 69% Yes 18% Other replies 13%
Kadima voters: No 63% Yes 26% Other 11%
Labor voters: No 57% Yes 29% Other 14%
Likud voters: No 82% Yes 1% Other 17%

#4 Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's reported demand that Israel abandon the settlement blocs as part of an agreement with the Palestinians?
No 51% Yes 34% Other replies 15%
Likud voters: No 75% Yes 17% Other 8%

#5 If Netanyahu bows to current U.S. pressure on the matter of construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, will the pressure that the United State places on Israel in the future be less, the same or increase?
Less pressure 23% Same pressure 22% More pressure 39% Other replies 16%
Likud voters: Less 19% Same 23% More 39% Other 19%

#6 Was Binyamin Netanyahu correct when he warned in the past that if a sovereign Palestinian state were established that it would be impossible to enforce security restrictions and limitations on it?
Was right 59% Wrong 28% Other replies 13%
Likud voters: Was right 83% Wrong 15% Other 2%
Kadima voters: Was right 43% Wrong 42% Other 15%

True, Israelis back Netanyahu on the settlements, but not overwhelmingly so. They may be reacting out of resentment of the pressure that Obama is applying than out of principled defense of the settlements per se.

However, when the focus turns to Jerusalem (question 3), there is a greater consensus.

On whether Obama would apply even more pressure if Israel refuses to do what he demands, only 39% think he will apply more pressure--and 23% even think there will be less. Apparently, Israelis have their eye on other countries that also seem to take Obama less than seriously.

I way I see it, if Obama really wanted to make headway on this, he should have given his speech from Jerusalem and tailored it accordingly--that would have put the pressure on Netanyahu.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Obama and Settlements.

Obama Is A Student Of Reverend Wright--Not Of History

In his Cairo speech, Obama bragged that he is "a student of history," but such a claim obscures who is actual teacher is, in case you've forgotten:

“Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office…

Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not do so for fear of offending Jews and Israel.

“Ethic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel,” Wright said.

Allahpundit notes that Obama was a member of Wright's church for 20 years and had personal conversations with him. Even putting aside the gross anti-Semitism that Wright spews, it is likely that Obama picked up some of his simplistic worldview of the Middle East from Wright as well.

Obama has framed Israel as a refuge for Jews from the Holocaust and persecution. That is what he said in an interview last year with Jeffrey Goldberg:

I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea. [emphasis added]

And he said the same thing in his Cairo speech:

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. [emphasis added]

Obama--'the student of history'--is ignorant of history, and the fact that the re-establishment of the state of Israel is based on the historical ties of Jews to the land.

Obama's view of Israel is nothing but a sanitized version of what Wright believes--that Jews came to the land of Palestine to escape the Holocaust and usurped the Palestinian Arabs.

And this is the outlook is part of what informs his policy in the Middle East.

For all the praise for how smart Obama is, intelligence and political moxie are not a substitute for knowledge and sound judgment.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Holocaust and Reverend Wright.

"What If Israel Strikes Iran?"

John Bolton addresses the possible options that Iran has in response to an Israeli strike against their nuclear facilities. Here is a brief summary of the options:

1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran's knee-jerk answer -- along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers -- this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran...

2) Iran cuts its o wn oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency...

3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf -- but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended...

4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open...

5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel...

6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah...

Bolton sums it up:

This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.

Read the whole thing.

Unfortunately, the one with the most reason to take the Iranian threat seriously is Israel. Considering the lack of response at the UN to Ahmadinejad's periodic threats against Israel, and the footdragging in response to Iran's march towards nuclear capabilities, there is not much reason to be optimistic.

And Obama is not helping matters.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Will It Make A Difference If Ahmadinejad Loses? (Updated)

According to Con Coughlin--executive foreign editor of the Daily Telegraph in London and the author of "Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam"--it really doesn't make a difference who wins Friday's election:

Thus, for the past two elections to the Majlis (the Iranian parliament) the Revolutionary Guards -- who are controlled directly by Mr. Khamanei -- have carefully vetted all the candidates to ensure only those with the right revolutionary credentials are allowed to stand.

Now the regime, in the form of the Guardian Council, which is charged with upholding the tenets of Khomeini's revolution, has employed the same tactic ahead of the presidential election: Of the original 475 applicants only four candidates have survived the cull. All of them have revolutionary credentials beyond reproach.

There is of course the 52-year-old Mr. Ahmadinejad. He is widely expected to win re-election.

Mohsen Rezaie, 55, is a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards. He is subject to an international arrest warrant issued by the Argentine goverment in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people and injured 151.

Mir Hossein Musavi, 67, is a conservative hard-liner who served as Iran's prime minister under the Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s and frequently clashed with Khamenei, then the president of Iran, over various issues including improved relations with the U.S.

Finally there is Mahdi Kharroubi, 72, a former speaker of parliament. He enjoys the distinction of having been a close confidant of both Khomeini and Mr. Khamenei.

Hizbollah's loss in the Lebanese elections will not restore stability to that country, but the fact that they did lose gives hope for the future--something that we will not have about Iran regardless of who wins.

It will just give Obama someone else to talk to.

UPDATE: Regarding Mousavi, whom the media regards as a moderate, Michael Ledeen writes that Mousavi is a less than charismatic man; it is his wife who is dynamic--speaking in public about reform. Ledeen then asks:

What does it all mean? The (for the moment, at least, largely unanswerable) questions are fascinating and important:

— Why hasn't Supreme Leader Khamenei shut her up?

— Would a Mousavi presidency matter anyway?

— Would Mousavi's opponents accept his "election" (Iran has circuses, not real elections, and cheating is not only easy but part of the circus)? Or would they take to the streets?

— Would Mousavi's supporters accept his defeat? Or would they take to the streets? Hell, they have already taken to the streets . . .

Ahmadinezhad seems to be in real trouble, and some of his supporters appear to have rallied round Mohsen Rezai, the former Revolutionary Guards commander.

Iran seems to have wanted to make Lebanon more like itself. How ironic if in the end Iran becomes more like Lebanon.

Technorati Tag: Iranian Elections.

Saudis Take Obama Seriously--Get Involved

Obama's demands of Israel are well known, his demands of the Palestinian Arabs--not so much. So Obama wanted to be clear.

"I've discussed the importance of a cessation of settlement construction,"
he said in France Saturday, "but I also want to reemphasize, because that's
gotten more attention than what I've also said, which is the Palestinians
have to renounce violence, end incitement, improve their governance capacity
so that Israelis can be confident that the Palestinians can follow through
on any commitments they make across the table."

I can't wait to read about how Obama is putting as much pressure on the Palestinians to stop killing civilians as it is on Israel to freeze the settlements. Maybe Obama is just more concerned about the possibility of bringing down Abbas than he is about bringing down Bibi.

Meanwhile, Obama wants the other Arab states to take action as well:

The day before, in Germany, he also emphasized his call for the Arab states
to take decisive action.

"The Arab states have to be a part of this process. It's not sufficient just
to point at the Palestinian problem and then say we are not going to engage,
we're not going to take responsibility," he said.

"They are going to have to step up as well because the Arab states not only
are important politically, they're also important economically. And to the
extent that they put their shoulder behind the wheel, that can move the
process forward in a significant way."

He referred to them making economic and diplomatic moves towards Israel as
the process gains momentum.

Sure enough--no sooner said than done--Saudi Arabia makes an economic move towards Israel:

The United States should cut off all to Israel if the Jewish state does not accept the terms of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told Newsweek magazine.

In answer to a question if U.S. President Barack Obama should use financial help as a tool to force Israel to implement the plan, the Foreign Minister stated, "Why not? If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people's lands, you bear some responsibility."

Lest you think that the Saudis have nothing to offer Israel, they do offer 'recognition':

He also made it clear that the only concession the Arab world can make to Israel is diplomatic recognition, meaning that all other terms of the Saudi peace initiative are non-negotiable. “We don't have anything to offer Israel except normalization, and if we put that before the return of Arab land we are giving away the only chip in the hands of Arab countries,” he told the news weekly.

Diplomatic recognition is not recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Other than that, Saudi Arabia claims that the terms of the Saudi Plan are cast in stone. And why shouldn't they be. Like Abbas, the rest of the Arab world has taken their cue from Obama and figure they will get everything they want from Israel, thanks to the new President.

Looks like everything is going according to plan:

One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere."

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Saudi Arabia.

Did Obama 'Shoe' Israel? (Updated)

Take a look at this picture of Obama talking to Netanyau:

It has generated anger in Israel:

Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "insult" to Israel.

They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.

It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.

I could understand if this was limited to Sephardic Jews who immigrated from Arab countries, but the implication is that this was not limited to them alone. Myself, my parents got annoyed at me when I walked around the house without my shoes, as that is a sign of mourning.

As the article makes clear--Israelis feel cornered, and are showing it.

Apparently, Israel is seen as being in the way:

Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat." [emphasis added]

So much for getting rid of US arrogance.

UPDATE: Powerline quotes the thoughts of Paul Rahe, professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of the three-volume study Republics Ancient and Modern. Professor Rahe writes that Obama has a history of these kinds of gestures:

Far-fetched thoough these fears might seem, I suspect that these Israelis are not being hypersensitive. Barack Obama has a history of belittling his adversaries in just such a fashion. In April 2008, he was caught on tape during a debate with Hillary Clinton, rubbing his hand across the right side of his face and extending his middle finger in an obscene gesture that many in the audience could see it but she could not, and when this provoked laughter on the part of his supporters he responded with a knowing smile.

Later, after accepting his party's nomination, he did precisely the same thing during a debate with John McCain; and, after Sarah Palin remarked at the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a soccer mom was lipstick, he observed at a rally that a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Again, many in the audience caught the dig and they, too, were rewarded with a knowing smile...

...Behind the thin veneer of politeness, there is, I suspect, something ugly lurking. In the first of the autobiographies that he claims to have written, Barack Obama frequently speaks of himself as being in the grips of rage. We would do well to take him at his word. If we are to stop him from doing great damage to this country and to our friends and allies, we must take every opportunity that comes our way to unmask the man.

Read the whole thing.

Check out Memeorandum

Also, read Mark Steyn's review of Rahe's book: Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Obama Postpones Embassy Move To Jerusalem

No shock here:

US President Barack Obama delayed for six months moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the White House said on Friday, a bureaucratic ritual that exemplifies the controversial aspect of the city's status.

Ever since a law was passed in 1995 ordering the transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv – where other foreign embassies are located – to Jerusalem, US presidents have routinely delayed the move.

US policy on Jerusalem has not changed: Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, said a White House official speaking on condition of anonymity.

According to The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995:

(a) WAIVER AUTHORITY.-(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the President may
suspend the limitation set forth in section 3(b) for a period of six months
if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is
necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

When previous presidents signed the waiver, the reason given was national security--that is, concern for the security of the embassy from Palestinian terrorists. In Obama's case, the reason may well be not to upset his plans for freezing settlement growth:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

...“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.

One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.

Perhaps Clinton will say that when it comes to Jerusalem, again there is nothing memorialized about Jerusalem remaining an undivided city. But among the findings made by Congress, listed in The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, the first 10 are:

(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate
its own capital.

(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of
Israel.

(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's President, Parliament, and
Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and
cultural institutions.

(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also
considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all
faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy
sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as
the Six Day War.

(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel, and
persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy
sites within the city.

(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been
administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been
respected and protected.

(9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution
106, which declares that the Congress ''strongly believes that Jerusalem
must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and
religious group are protected''.

(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives
unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred
Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of
Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must
remain an undivided city.

And yet here we are, talking about freezing growth in Jerusalem and dividing the city.

At this point, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is the least of Israel's problems.

Technorati Tag: Jerusalem.

Obama In Cairo: Revising History For The Future

The following was forwarded to be by a friend.
Posted with permission.

President Obama's Plans for America; the Cairo Subtext

by Joel Fishman

On Thursday, June 4, the President of the United States, Barack Obama delivered an impressive speech, a message of goodwill to the Arab world. He described how America viewed its place in the world and its relations with Islamic culture and religion. The speech contained both "smooth things" and frank criticism. On the one hand, the expression of flattery was so extravagant as to be untruthful, while, one the other, the expression of criticism was circumspect and unspecific. The president also set out the administration's position with regard to the Arab conflict with the State of Israel. Some of his remarks showed a refined grasp of the problems of the region, particularly his observation that a number of regimes try to channel hostility to an outside enemy in order to divert the attention of the public from their shortcomings.

Beyond falsely attributing some of the great technological and intellectual advances of human civilization to Islam, the President misrepresented and downgraded the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. He stated that the Jewish claim was based on the tragic suffering of the Holocaust. With this, he omitted the fact that the Jewish People is the "First Nation" – to use the Canadian term – and possesses "aboriginal rights" to this land and that in the 1920s the League of Nations recognized the rights of the Jewish people to what was then Mandatory Palestine and this recognition became part of international law. While the President condemned Holocaust denial, he himself did not mention, and thus implicitly denied the existence of ancient Jewish history in the Land of Israel. By doing so, he became a "Bible denier," which may be worse than a "Holocaust" denier. The President omitted the fact that the Arab world had largely sympathized and collaborated with Nazi Germany and that the countries of the Arab world murdered, plundered, and expelled their Jewish populations.

The French commentator, Guy Millière, wrote that Obama is either ignorant of history, which is distressing, or he really knows his history and chose to lie, which is even more distressing. Under these circumstances, it is better to show due respect for the President and to assume that he is capable and well-informed. Others have underestimated this man and paid a high price. Once we understand that the president is responsible for his words, we can argue that he willfully misrepresented the historical record. While others have corrected his misstatements, the real question is what do his words really mean? What President Obama's ultimate political purpose? What is the telos?

Marc Bloch, the French medievalist, wrote that one may learn much from a counterfeit and that after exposing an historical fraud, the main question one must ask is, what is the motive of the counterfeiter? Some possible motives may be obvious, but others are less so. The most obvious reason for the speech was its declared purpose, to forge better relations with the Muslim world. However, one should not overlook the fact that the speech had a message for a broader audience, to promote "a better dialogue" with Islam. Just before his trip, on June 1, the President explained this in his interview with Laura Haim of France's Canal Plus, "… I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam." Traditionally, American presidents have not been the advocates of any religion. They have been advocates of the United States of America. Actually, by making the case for Islam, the President engaged in da'wa, or "soft da'wa." According to its definition, "the purpose of Da‘wa is to invite people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to understand the worship of God as expressed in the Qur'ān, as well as to inform them about Muhammad."

Prof. Karina Korostelina of George Mason University who has studied how the teaching of history is used to serve political ends, particularly in Eastern Europe, stated, "People who control the past and define major national problems and grievances are also the ones who define the future, for they define who we are and what we aspire to be." It may be remembered that in his inaugural address, President Obama spoke of the United States as a nation of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus." Similarly, in Cairo, he mentioned Christianity as one of several other religions. The President has been consistent in his downgrading of Christianity, but the fact is that Protestant Christianity contributed to the development of democracy in America. Many of its ideas came directly from the Hebrew Bible when during the seventeenth century the literate public could read it in English translation. This basic historical fact is undisputed.

The historian Alexis de Tocqueville is known for his pioneering interpretation which identified importance of religion in American life and as the source of its exceptionalism. Interestingly enough, Tocqueville argued that a Christian cultural environment was able to support a secular society but Islamic culture could not:

Mohammad had not only religious doctrines descend from Heaven and placed in the Koran, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, in contrast, speak only of the general relations of men to God and among themselves. Outside of that they teach nothing and oblige nothing to be believed. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of these two religions cannot dominate for long in enlightened and democratic times, whereas the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all others. (Democracy in America, Vol. II, Part one, Chapter Five)

What sort of a country would America become if the legacy of Protestant Christianity lost its cultural influence and what would this mean for America's democracy and secular society? During the same interview with Laura Haim, the president made an incredible claim. Obama said: "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." It does not take much imagination to surmise that while this is not the case at present, Obama would really like to change the United States into "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world," and that he wanted to get the public used to the idea. Otherwise, he would have chosen different language. To achieve this objective, it would be necessary first to bring about a "transformation of national consciousness" to create a state of indifference or passivity which would go along with a large-scale Islamic immigration to America, -- as was the case in Europe. (This could take place during a second term of office, or sooner if economic conditions improve slightly).

A radical program of changing the population balance in America could easily destabilize middle-class democracy. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has carefully described the doctrine of social warfare of the Italian Marxist and personal friend of Lenin, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci argued that it was necessary to destroy the ideological supremacy "of a system of values that supports the class or group interests of the predominant classes or groups." This is done by "delegitimizing the dominant belief systems," through a struggle fought out on the level of consciousness, and by empowering society's marginalized groups. Fonte pointed out that the goal of this struggle is the overthrow of middle-class liberal democracy in America in order to pave the way for sweeping radical change. The Muslims in America are certainly not marginalized, and they have done well. It is obvious, nonetheless, that President Obama, even without a new wave of Muslim immigration, is endeavoring to upgrade the status of this minority, to make it "more equal" than others, and thus to rearrange the basic and traditional structure of American society. This project represents a danger to democracy in America and could ultimately destroy the fabric of its society and public life, quickly and permanently.

Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of a research center in Jerusalem.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Cairo Speech .

Why Shamir And Netanyahu Fell--And The Lesson To Be Learned

The consensus is that Yitzchak Shamir fell from power because of the tension between him and the first President Bush. Netanyahu likewise, during his first tenure as Prime Minister, did not get along well with the White House.

Shmuel Rosner agrees that is the consensus:

However, the falls of both Shamir and Netanyahu were not the direct result of their contentious dealings with the U.S. In fact, both prime ministers lost their jobs when they decided to abide by American demands. Shamir went to the Madrid conference and lost the right-wing parties of his coalition, as the official site of Israel’s Knesset describes it:

The Twelfth Knesset officiated for three years and eight months, during which two governments presided, both headed by Yitzhak Shamir. The first of which - the 23rd Government - was forced to resign after a defeat in a no-confidence motion over the negotiations with the Palestinians. The elections to the 13th Knesset were brought forward following the breakdown of the coalition in Shamir’s second government. Three right-wing parties — Tzomet, Tehiya and Moledet — resigned from the Government in protest over the Madrid Conference.

Netanyahu faced similar opposition within his own camp after going to the Wye Plantation summit and signing accords that were unacceptable to members of the Netanyahu coalition: “The normal term of the 14th Knesset should have expired in November 2000. However, the Knesset passed a law for its early dissolution on 4 January 1999, after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had difficulty getting the governing coalition members to support his Middle East peace policy, and the state budget for 1999.”It is w