Week In Review From One Jerusalem--Week of July 26, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

Weekly Review: July 26, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● AUDIO :: The Israel Test: MP3 File Bestselling author George Gilder has entered the debate over Israel with the publication of his robust defense of Israel in his new book The Israel Test. Listen to him respond to questions about Israel and the world... (read more)

● Why the U.S. Needs Israel: George Gilder, NY Times bestseller, technology guru, discusses why he wrote The Israel Test. Buy it here.... watch the video

● NETANYAHU TELLS OBAMA ALL OF JERUSALEM IS OPEN TO JEWS: President Obama's campaign to take control of Jerusalem from the State of Israel intensified over the weekend. Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the United States was summoned by the Obama administration and told that Israel must stop building in Jerusalem... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Obama Continues To Falter In The Middle East As Talks Have Yet To Restart (Updated)

On Thursday, The Washington Post described Obama's foreign policy in a nutshell:

The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran.

I suppose that Iran was left out because of the lack of any formal diplomatic moves by Obama towards that country. But the Washington Post is remaining consistent in opposition to Obama's pressure on Israel regarding settlements--as Jackson Diehl expressed it in his June 29 column.

Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.[emphasis added]

The Washington Post has a point there--for all of his talk about hitting the ground running on the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, instead of jump-starting talks, Obama has merely antagonized Israel and allowed the Palestinian Arabs to think that all they need to do is sit back and let Obama do all of the work for them. Obama has not hit the ground running; he has hit a brick wall--one entirely of his own making.

Apparently, Obama's Cairo speech did not have the grand effect that he and his people have claimed, and if he now finds himself compromising with Israel on the issue of the settlements--matters will only get worse.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.

Obama has tackled a number of highly visible issues since taking office--which is to his credit. What is not to his credit is that he has yet to score a decisive win on any of those issues. Instead, he finds his once vaunted popularity continuing to drop.

Apparently both Americans and the media are beginning to realize that something is wrong with Obama's policies, both domestically and internationally.

UPDATE: Apparently, Obama has no real plan for a Israel-Palestinian peace, other than--talking:

Recent talks with US envoy George Mitchell have left Israeli officials with the impression that - contrary to expectations in some circles - President Barack Obama is not going to unfurl his own regional peace plan.

Rather, according to these officials, the administration is aiming to create a positive dynamic that will lead to the relaunching of a Palestinian-Israeli diplomatic process, but this time with more regional players on board.

...But, according to the officials, the sense in Jerusalem now is that
Washington realizes that it is not constructive to just place a plan on the
table, without putting all the different pieces together to enable it to be
accepted.

Obama seems to now be following the advice offered back in February to follow a minimalist approach and not rush into a final agreement. One of those who made that recommendation was Obama's former adviser Robert Malley:

"The basic agreement, I think, is that none of us is going to recommend, and, in fact, all us will recommend against, rushing towards a grand, comprehensive, end-of-conflict deal between Israelis and Palestinians," he said. "I think you will hear that we don't think that the time is ripe at this point for an end-of-conflict, comprehensive agreement between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people."

Malley said that all of the parameters that guided the Clinton administration's peace efforts in the 1990s have shifted. He said there are no longer two coherent entities that could sign a peace treaty, if one were forged. He noted Israel's election next Tuesday, with polls showing hardliner and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the frontrunner. But Malley also cited the fact that there is no longer a national Palestinian movement with which to negotiate.

If so, then all Obama has to do is explain this to the Palestinian Arabs and all those who expected Obama to take a forceful position on Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Some Questions For J Street, And Their Friends

The following was written by William K. Langfan, a member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Stratetgic Studies

JULY 27, 2009
Dear Editor:

J Street and 11 other groups including Americans for Peace Now, the Israeli Policy Forum, the New Israel Fund, et al are scheduled to have a conference in Washington on October 25-28, 2009, to promote Israeli/Palestinian peace.

I would like leaders from any of these well-meaning organizations to answer the following questions and interrogatories:

1. Admit or deny that Hamas leaders have repeatedly declared before and after their victory in the last Palestinian election, that they will destroy Israel?

2. Admit or deny that PLO and Fatah leaders have stated on many occasions that any agreements with Israel are phases towards their ultimate goal which is the liberation of Palestine.

3a. Admit or deny that the Palestinian National Council (PNC) voted in 1974 that the Palestinian leadership will destroy Israel in phases.

3b. Admit or deny that Arafat on September 1, 1993, reaffirmed that the Oslo accords are an intricate part of the 1974 phased plan.

3c. Admit or deny that PA President and Chairman of Fatah declared on October 3, 2006 that “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or the Popular Front to recognize Israel”.

3d. Admit or deny that Kifah Radayeh, a senior Fatah official head of Fatah Jerusalem Charter, declared on PA TV in July 2009, “It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but peace has never been a goal of Fatah, the goal is Palestine … armed struggle has never been ruled out …”.

3e. Admit or deny that no leader of Fatah or the Palestinian Authority, or the PLO has disavowed Kifa Radayeh’s July 2009 declaration.

4a. Admit or deny that President Abbas is one of the founders of Fatah, whose 1964 constitution declares that the establishment of Israel is illegal, and calls for armed conflict to end the occupation of Palestine (this was three years before the 1967 war, when Israel took control of the west Bank).

4b. Admit or deny that any member of Fatah has ever disowned any article of the Fatah Constitution.

4c. Admit or deny that the 1964 PLO Charter (amended in 1968) contains virtually the same language as the Fatah 1964 Constitution.

4d. Admit or deny that any modification of the Charter has ever occurred, since the December 1998 Palestinian National Council vote to accept the content of Arafat’s letter to then President Clinton, which alleged that certain charter articles were eliminated or modified.

5. What facts have occurred which would indicate to an objective observer that Palestinian leader who declared in 1964, three years before Israel had the West Bank, that the establishment of Israel was illegal and that armed conflict was necessary to liberate Palestine, are now willing to effect peace with Israel if Israel were to return to pre-1967 borders.

6. Do your leaders want Jerusalem to be divided?

7. The Palestinian leadership has unequivocally stated that there can be no peace with Israel unless the Palestine’s refugees are returned to Israel.

How do the leaders of your organization expect Israel and the Palestinians to resolve this issue?

Respectfully submitted,

William K. Langfan

I guess all we can do now is sit back and wait for their answers--but don't hold your breath...

Technorati Tag: William K. Langfan and J Street and Americans for Peace Now and Israeli Policy Forum and New Israel Fund.

Another Jewish History Lesson For Obama

Yoram Ettinger writes about the Jewish roots of 'Palestine' that Obama forgot in his now infamous Cairo speech:

Jewish Occupation or Roots in Judea and Samaria?
Jerusalem Cloakroom #226, July 31, 2009

1. President Obama's claim – enunciated during his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University – that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history [The Holocaust] that cannot be denied," ignores thoroughly-documented Jewish roots in the Land of Israel in general and in Judea & Samaria in particular.

2. World renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries, such as H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865), Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867), R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ("Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly"), A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887), E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841)), C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861), Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864) – as well as Encyclopedia Britannica and official British and Ottoman records (until 1950) refer to "Judea and Samaria" and not to the "West Bank." The latter term was coined by the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria following the 1948/9 War.

3. The term "Palestine" was established by Greek Historian Herodotus, and adopted by the Roman Empire, in an attempt to erase "Judea" from human memory. "Palestine" was a derivative of the biblical Philistines, arch rivals of the Jewish nation, non-Semites who migrated to the area from the Greek islands and from Phoenicia in the 12th century BCE ("Plishtim" – the invaders - is the Hebrew word for "Philistines").

4. Most Arabs (Semites from the Arabian Peninsula), who reside between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries.

5. Almost all Arab towns and villages in Judea and Samaria have retained biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming Jewish roots there. For example:

*A-Dura is biblical (and contemporary) Adora'yim, site of King Rehoboam's and a Maccabees' fortress.

*A-Ram is biblical Haramah, Prophet Samuel's birth and burial site.

*Anata is biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah.

*Batir is biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire, which was crashed in 135CE.

*Beit-hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians.

*Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Bethel, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court.

*Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David.

*Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem.

*El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground known for "Sun, stop thou in Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ayalon," Joshua 10:12.

*Hebron - named after Hevron, Moses' uncle and Levy's grandson – was King David's first capital for 7 years, the burial site of the 3 Jewish Patriarchs and 3 Jewish Matriarchs.

*Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary Geva, site of Jonathan's (son of King Saul) victory over the Philistines.

*Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar.

*Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress.

*Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth.

*Tequa' is biblical (and contemporary) Teqoah, hometown of the Prophet Amos and currently known for its home grown Ginger.

*Etc.

Are these sites "occupied" by the Jewish State or are they the epitome of Jewish moral high-ground and Statehood?

A question that Obama is likely to continue to avoid.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Avigdor Lieberman--An Israeli Joe Biden? (Updated)

Avigdor Lieberman has been painted as an extremist and a serious liability for Netanyahu, and it is true that Lieberman is a controversial figure, J. E. Dyer adds:

But what Lieberman has been doing since assuming office is working on one of Israel’s greatest security concerns: isolation. Lieberman has been the principal actor in Israel’s charm offensive with Russia, China, Europe, and now Latin America, with the agenda of strengthening relations and obtaining broad cooperation in discouraging Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

Lieberman’s native Russian ties give him, it has been postulated, an edge in discussions with Moscow — an analysis that highlights the growing importance to Israel of leverage and goodwill beyond the relationship with the U.S. The trip to Latin America this month represents even more clearly a new policy direction, being the first such visit by an Israeli foreign minister in more than two decades. Netanyahu is scheduled for a visit of his own in November, an even rarer event. Israel’s hope is not only to strengthen ties with regional governments and get cooperation against Iran but also to counter Iran’s own extensive inroads into Latin America.

The latter initiative is emblematic of a U.S.-independent tone emerging in Israel’s foreign policy. Lieberman’s visit to Russia carried such hints as well, producing an emphasis on a common view with Sergei Lavrov regarding the regional dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need to bring the Saudis and other regional nations into any peace plan.

Analysts who draw their conclusions from a “weak Bibi” perspective — one that assumes Netanyahu must live with Lieberman and not let him do too much — could be missing a more important trend. Lieberman may not be the go-to man for relations with the United States while those relations center on demands regarding the settlements. But Israel cannot allow the settlements issue to bog down its own broader security policy. And Israel’s spearheading of efforts outside the U.S. relationship appears to be accomplished via Lieberman.

Apparently is sort of Israel's version of Joe Biden--without the gaffes.

UPDATE: David Hazony agrees with Dyer's assessment and notes:

The very feature that makes Lieberman distasteful to many Westerners — his power-affirming nationalism — may make him more respected and, frankly, understandable in other parts of the world, especially in places like Russia and Latin America, where strongmen are respected rather than reviled. There is something ingenious about Netanyahu’s deployment of his foreign policy assets, from his assignment of Lieberman to places where he is most likely to be respected and his positioning of Michael Oren (disclosure: friend, former Shalem Center colleague, and fellow Commentary contributor) as ambassador to the U.S., to his own rallying of Israeli public support against Obama’s firm stance on settlements.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Avigdor Lieberman.

Tisha B'Av and Gush Katif

From an email:

The 4th Yahrzeit of Gush Katif is just days away.. and despite the promises, many of the former residents are still without homes, a livelihood and enough money to put food on the table. The National Council of Young Israel, together with Yad Ezra have taken upon themselves to provide the food and provisions necessary to make Yom Tov and Holiday Time special for these true heroes of the Jewish people. . Your contributions and support of our campaign will help to restore the crown of glory to our brothers and sisters who have suffered so much. We invite you to read the following article that appears today in Hamodia

To read the article by Yael Ehrenpreis Meyer entitled: "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" click here

To Donate to the campaign, please click here or send your check to National Council of Young Israel (GK Campaign) 111 John Street, Suite 450, NY NY 10038

This Tisha B'Av... make a difference and help the former residents of Gush Katif

Thank you

National Council of Young Israel
www.youngisrael.org

Technorati Tag: Tisha B'Av and Gush Katif.

A Tisha B'Av Lamentation --About the Failure to Bomb Auschwitz

From an email:

A Tisha B'Av Lamentation
--About the Failure to Bomb Auschwitz

by Rafael Medoff

(Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org)


On Wednesday night, Jews around the world will gather to recite the traditional Tisha B'Av lamentations focusing on the destruction of the ancient temple in Jerusalem. A growing number of communities are adding a lamentation that refers to a much more recent tragedy--the failure of the Allies to bomb the Auschwitz death camp in 1944.

What makes this additional lamentation, or kina in Hebrew, especially interesting is that it not only refers so specifically to the failure to bomb Auschwtz, but it was written by the rabbi who was himself the first person to appeal to the Roosevelt administration to order the bombing of Auschwitz and the railway lines leading to it.

The author, Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl (1903-1957) grew up in Slovakia and became a prominent figure in the famous Nitra Yeshiva.

When the Germans began deporting Slovakia's Jews to Auschwitz in the spring of 1942, Rabbi Weissmandl and his cousin Mrs. Gisi Fleischmann, a community activist, established an underground rescue organization known as the Prakova Skupina, or Working Group. Their effors included smuggling hundreds of Jewish children across the border into Hungary, which at that point was a safe haven. Most notably, they paid a $50,000 bribe to Nazi official Dieter Wisliceny to halt the deportations. From the autumn of 1942 until October 1944, no Jews were deported from Slovakia.

Although some information about the mass killings in Auschwitz leaked out earlier, the full details of the camp's operations were revealed in late April 1944, when escapees Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler reached Slovakia. They gave Rabbi Weissmandl and his Working Group colleagues a thirty-page report explaining the mass murder process, including maps showing precisely where the gas chambers and crematoria were situated. The report was sent to U.S.=2 0and British diplomats, officials of the Vatican, and Jewish rescue activists in neutral Switzerland, together with letters from Rabbi Weissmandl urging the Allies to bomb the death camp.

"We ask that the crematoria of Auschwitz be bombed from the air," he pleaded. "They are sharply visible, as shown on the enclosed map. Such bombing will delay the work of the German murderers. What is more important--to bomb persistently all the roads leading from Eastern Hungary to Poland and to bomb persistently the bridges," over which thousands of Hungarian Jews were being deported in cattle cars bound for the death camp.

The rabbi's appeals reached the Roosevelt administration, which turned them down cold. Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy told American Jewish leaders that a study had found the bombing proposal was "impracticable" because it would require "diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere."

In fact, no study was ever done and no planes would have had to be diverted, because U.S. bombers were already flying directly over Auschwitz in preparation for the bombing of German oil factories less than five miles from the gas chambers. The real reason for the refusal was that the Roosevelt administration had already decided, as a matter of principle, to refrain from expending even minimal resources on humanitarian objectives such as interrupting the mass murder of the Jews.

(The U.S. position will be explored in depth at a conference on "The Failure to Bomb Auschwitz: History, Politics, Controversy," sponsored by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, to be held at the Fordham University Law School, in New York City, on Sunday, September 13, 2009. To register, call 202-434-8994 or visitwww.WymanInstitute.org)

Rabbi Weissmandl himself narrowly escaped death. Captured by the Germans in August 1944 and placed on a train bound for Auschwitz, he cut a hole in the cattle car with an emery thread hidden in a crust of bread. After the war he immigrated to the United States, where he established a new Nitra Yeshiva, in Mount Kisco, NY.

It was there, in approximately 1955, that Rabbi Weissmandl composed his Tisha B'Av lamentation (or 'kina'), titled "Kinat Min HaMeitzar" (or "From the Depths," the opening words of Psalm 118). Long unknown except to the rabbi's own students, Kinat Min HaMeitzar is now gaining wider circulation thanks to its recent publication, together with commentary, by the Jerusalem-based scholar Jacob Fuchs.

The text, which is available from Feldheim Publishers, overflows with the anguish of someone who watc hed the Jewish world go up in flames while his cries for help went unheeded. In the fifth stanza, Rabbi Weissmandl reaches back into the depths of his painful experiences, bringing a modern event into a narrative rooted in ancient history. "How is it," he writes (using the Hebrew phrase Eicha, which is also the title of the Biblical text read on Tisha B'Av) that while the world's transport lines wer e destroyed by the fury of the war, [the Allies] did nothing about the lines transporting the Jews to the [Auschwitz slaughter house] ? They [the Allies] claimed it was because of a lack of airplanes. But the answer was that the Allies were not concerned about the fate of the Jews."

A difficult and thought-provoking outcry, bitterly appropriate for Tisha B'Av, the day we pause to consider the depths to which human beings can sink--not only the murderers, but the bystanders as well.

Technorati Tag: Tisha B'Av and Auschwitz.

Terrorist Sues Sacha Baron Cohen--For Making Him Look Bad

Who knew terrorists were so sensitive:

A self-proclaimed reformed Aksa Martyrs Brigades operative is claiming damages from Sacha Baron Cohen for portraying him as a terrorist in his new movie 'Bruno.'

In the movie, Cohen interviews the man, Ayman Abu Ayta, poking fun at terrorists and Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden.

Times Online further clarifies that there are two issues:

Mr Abu Aita’s lawyer, Hatem Abu Ahmad, said that he is preparing a legal action against Baron Cohen and Universal Studios alleging that the Martyrs’ Brigade reference could get his client in trouble with the Israelis and the homosexual association could get him killed by the Palestinians.

So being identified as a terrorist means Aita 'gets in trouble' with Israel--but being identified as gay gets him killed by his fellow Palestinian Arabs.
It's clear which Aita and his lawyer take more seriously.

David Hazony notes a larger irony:

And so, for just a few days, we all got to enjoy the splendid irony of an organization dedicated to killing innocent people trying to claim its right to preserve its pristine reputation as being straight — that is, of a convicted terrorist suing somebody for defamation.

But then, reason set in. “Wait a minute,” the folks at Al-Aksa apparently said to themselves. “We’re terrorists. We don’t accept Western institutions of law. ‘Doh!”

Alas, all ironies must end, either by correction or by dissolution into cliché. And so we learn that Al-Aksa has chosen the former route, issuing an apparent death threat to Baron Cohen. The supreme satirist has been forced to add bodyguards to his list of liabilities.

One man's terrorist is another man's plaintiff--until the group decides to kill for damages.

Technorati Tag: Al-Aksa Brigade and Sacha Baron Cohen and Bruno.

Forget About Obama As The 'First Jewish President'--How About Janet Jagan!

My thanks to Cindy, who pointed this interesting trivia fact in a comment to another post.

Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations may refer to Obama as "The First Jewish President," but that title rightfully belongs to someone else: Janet Rosenberg Jagan--who was also from Chicago.

Jagan was president of Guyana and holds the distinction of being one of 3 Jewish women to have served as leaders of a nation in modern times--the other two being Golda Meir of Israel and Ruth Dreifuss. Dreifuss was a member of the Swiss Federal Council representing Geneva and held the rotating presidency of the Swiss Confederation from January 1 to December 31, 1999.

Apparently that is not Jagan's only distinction.

According to The Forward:

Jagan (rhymes with Reagan) is remembered, too, as the first woman — Jewish or otherwise — ever freely elected as president of a South American country (as distinguished from various wives of Argentine dictator Juan Peron). She was the first white person ever elected to lead Guyana, and was the country’s longest-serving legislator. And she was probably the only American Jew ever chased out of public office by both the British marines and the American CIA.

Janet and her husband were Marxists, which made the British and the US nervous.

This was in 1953--after her husband Cheddi was elected chief minister of Guyana and his wife deputy speaker of the parliament. The the Jagans survived both incidences, though they ended up serving only 133 days--and strikes and riots in the country were funded by the CIA. The New York Times reports that President Kennedy was preoccupied with Guyana:

According to long-classified documents, President John F. Kennedy ordered the Central Intelligence Agency in 1961 to destabilize the Jagan government. The C.I.A. covertly financed a campaign of labor unrest, false information and sabotage that led to race riots and, eventually, the ascension of Forbes Burnham, a black, London-educated lawyer and a leader of the People’s Progressive Party who had become a rival of the Jagans. He became president and prime minister in 1966.

But they were back in 1957 and 1961 when they won the elections--and though Jagan was a secular Jew, there is even an Israel connection, when Jagan's husband Cheddi visited Israel in 1961 and Prime Minister Golda Meir argued his case to the British--until the State Department warned Israel that it was running the risk of being "regarded by the U.S. public as strengthening militarily" a communist regime.

In 1963 Jagan was called "The most controversial woman in South American politics since Evita Peron" by Time Magazine, which claimed

British Guiana's husband and wife team has brought little besides economic stagnation and political upheaval to the country.

There were even false rumors claiming she was related to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for spying for Russia.

On the other hand, Janet Jagan received the Order of Excellence--Guyana's highest honor, the Woman of Achievement award from the University of Guyana, and in 1997 the Gandhi Gold Medal for Peace--from UNESCO.

In 1997, after her husband Cheddi died, Janet Jagan was named prime minister and later that year was named president--a position she helf for 2 years until she was forced to step down after suffering a heart attack.

Not bad, for the first Jewish president.

Technorati Tag: Janet Jagan.

If Obama Wants To Re-establish US Friendship With Israel--Here Is The Roadmap

Yossi Klein Halevi writes about how Obama can salvage the friendly ties between the US and Israel, at a time when Obama's popularity in Israel has sunk:

According to one poll, only six percent of Israelis consider Obama a friend. That perception of hostility is new. Israelis welcomed Barack Obama when he visited here in July 2008 and many responded enthusiastically to his election. But Israelis sense that Obama has placed the onus for restarting negotiations on Israel. Worse, he is perceived as showing weakness toward the world's bullies while acting resolutely only toward Israel. Many Israelis--and not only on the right--suspect that Obama actually wants a showdown with Jerusalem to bolster his standing in the Muslim world. If those perceptions aren't countered, the Israeli public will reject Obama's peace initiatives.

Halevi offers a 6-point plan for Obama to follow:

1. Make clear that renewing the peace process requires simultaneous Israeli and Arab concessions.

2. Reaffirm the Israeli status of the settlement blocs in a future agreement.

3. Actively confront Palestinian demonization of Israel.

4. Affirm Israel's historical legitimacy to the Muslim world.

5. Make clear that the impending nuclearization of Iran, and not the Palestinian problem, is the region's most urgent crisis.

6. Don't treat the Netanyahu government as a pariah.

Read Halevi's article for his explanation and comments about each of the points.

In all due respect, some of the actions demanded of Obama were not fulfilled by President Bush:

o Bush did not clearly affirm the status of Israeli settlements--if he had, we would not have the current mess

o Bush did not forcefully address the demonization of Israel carried out in the Arab media.

o Bush did make a major issue of the historical ties of Jews to Israel.

o Bush vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons--and clearly failed

On the other hand, a number of Halevi's points are merely requiring Obama to either follow through on what he said in his Cairo speech--or correct misconceptions he created.

If more is expected of Obama to set things straight, it is because he had an active hand in disrupting US-Israel ties.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Sorry About The Light Blogging

Blogging has been light the last few days, and will continue to be light for a while longer.
My wife had knee surgery last week (torn miniscus) and I've been occupied.

News Flash: Obama Might Not Be The First Jewish President After All (Updated)

During Obama's presidential campaign, Alan Solow, an attorney and philanthropist and Obama supporter since Obama's first race for the Illinois Senate referred to Obama as the “first Jewish president.”

Oh, Solow also happens to be the recently elected chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

I wrote about this in my post Does AIPAC Now Represent Obama's Interests Too?, noting at the time that a number of other high-profile defenders of Israel also happened to be Obama supporters.

But things started to change in May:

As tension builds between the new Obama administration in Washington and the new Netanyahu government in Jerusalem, two of President Obama’s closest Jewish allies may find themselves increasingly in the middle.

Lee Rosenberg, who campaigned on behalf of Obama, was confirmed as president-elect of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at its recent national conference. And Alan Solow, an early Obama supporter, was recently elected chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

And now Solow has signed his name to the following:

STATEMENT BY CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS CHAIRMAN ALAN SOLOW AND EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN MALCOLM HOENLEIN ON ISSUES RAISED REGARDING CONSTRUCTION IN JERUSALEM

New York, July 21, 2009 … The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has long advocated and supported the unity of Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel. As such, we believe that legal construction by residents of the city should be allowed as long as it is in keeping with the standards and requirements of the municipality and the national government. We find disturbing the objections raised to the proposed construction of residential units on property that was legally purchased and approved by the appropriate authorities. The area in question houses major Israeli governmental agencies, including the national police headquarters. The United States has in the past and recently raised objections to the removal of illegal structures built by Arabs in eastern Jerusalem even though they were built in violation of zoning and other requirements often on usurped land. In addition to the Jewish housing, the project called for apartment units for Arabs as well.

It is particularly significant that the structure in question formerly was the house of the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseni who spent the war years in Berlin as a close ally of Hitler, aiding and abetting the Nazi extermination of Jews. He was also linked to the 1929 massacre in Hebron and other acts of incitement that resulted in deaths and destruction in what was then Palestine. There has been an expressed desire by some Palestinians to preserve the building as a tribute to Husseini.

As a united city, Jerusalem’s Jewish and Arab residents should be permitted to reside wherever legal and security requirements allow. Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents in live where they choose in Jerusalem. To do otherwise would undermine and prejudge the status of the city.

No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of its capital.

American Thinker is making alot out of this statement:

Now, Solow's statement makes it clear that his rosy expectations of Obama and Emanuel as reliable friends of Israel have been dashed.

Furthermore to appreciate Solow's public disagreement with the president, it's significant that he issued his statement not as a private citizen, but on the letterhead of , the Conference of Presidents. The conference embraces 52 Jewish organizations spanning the gamut from Reform to Orthodox, from American for Peace Now to the Zionist Organization of America.

So this time, it's not only a few reliable Israel supporters like Morton Klein of ZOA or Conference Vice Chairman Hoenlein who have been voicing deep concerns about Obama's policies toward Israel. Now, it's long-time friend Solow, speaking for the entire Conference.[emphasis added]

I don't know that this statement signals any kind of serious break between Solow and Obama. After all, Malcolm Hoenlein, the Executive Vice Chairman. Solow signed onto a statement that he was expected to. Who knows how much pressure there was to put out some kind of statement--would Solow just oppose something like this? Even if Solow agrees with the statement, that does not necessarily mean that his expectations of Obama have been 'dashed'--only further statements by Solow himself might clarify that.

Also, while the Conference may represent 53 organizations, that does not mean that "the entire gamut" backs the statement made. For instance, Ori Nir, the Americans for Peace Now spokesman has complained:

The statement that Malcolm Hoenlein and Alan Solow published earlier regarding construction in East Jerusalem does not reflect APN's position. APN strongly opposes actions that change the status quo in Jerusalem and threaten to prejudge or create obstacles to a negotiated solution in the city. As members of the Conference of Presidents, we were surprised to learn that this statement was published. We were never notified about it or given an opportunity to comment on it before its publication.

Who knows what percentage actually back the statement?

We can only hope that Obama's dropping approval numbers are indicative of people coming out from under his 'spell' and being able to evaluate his policies on their own merits.

Obama's dropping numbers would seem to indicate that people are doing exactly that.

UPDATE: Sure enough:

In an interview with Haaretz, Solow denied that the statement is indicative of a personal fallout with the president.

"The Conference has a long-standing policy on Jerusalem, and the disagreement between the governments of the U.S. and Israel were in the news," Solow said.

"Because the Conference had such a clear stated policy, it seemed appropriate to me that despite being someone who has known President Obama for a long time and continues to have very good working relations with him, I thought it was appropriate that the Conference official position be articulated."

So like I told you: it wasn't a disagreement; it was merely an articulation.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Apparently Obama's Cairo Speech Did Not Rock The Arab World After All

Remember Obama's Cairo speech?

Remember how the Cairo speech was credited for the results of the Lebanon election?

There were many domestic reasons voters handed an American-backed coalition a victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections on Sunday — but political analysts also attribute it in part to President Obama’s campaign of outreach to the Arab and Muslim world.

Remember how the Cairo speech was credited for the protests in Iran?

Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

Now there is research that indicates that the Muslim world was not all that moved by Obama's speech:

President Barack Obama's much-heralded speech last month in Egypt did little to change America's image in the Muslim world, a survey released Thursday shows.

Muslim people were not so easily moved by Obama's speech June 4, according to interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project.

"This analysis suggests that the speech had little measurable impact on views of the U.S. or Obama himself," the Pew researchers said.

...Only 14 percent of Turks have a favorable view of America; 15 percent of Palestinians; and 16 percent of Pakistanis.

...It may be too early to precisely judge the impact of Obama's highly-anticipated speech at Egypt's Cairo University last month, but the Pew poll said that the president's remarks resulted in lowering Israeli opinions of the United States more than it uplifted Palestinians.

Apparently, Israel expected long time friends to remain loyal while Palestinian Arabs expected Obama to hand them their own state on a silver platter.

Both have been disappointed.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Arab World.

Demand Hamas Recognize Israel? Can We Let Fatah Go First?

Instead of requiring Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist before opening talks with them--maybe the US and Europe should start by requiring Fatah to recognize Israel before even talking about settlements, let alone a two state solution.

That would avoid creating a brand new state next to Israel with leaders that talk like this:

"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government."All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."

Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.

Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.

Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.

...Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.

Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference. [emphasis added]

Does anyone really expect either Obama or Clinton to even take notice of talk like this?
Me neither.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Fatah and Two State Solution.

Obama Is Angry Over Racist Arrest Of Gates--But Imposes Segregation On Israel (Updated)

Jules Crittendon notes how the situation has played out in the case of the policeman who arrested Henry Gates:

The Cambridge cop accused of a racist arrest on Harvard Prof Henry Louis Gates Jr says he’s no racist and he won’t apologize. Gates has called James Crowley a “rogue cop,” though it’s not clear whether he knows much about this cop or his history. Meanwhile, the president of the United States, while acknowledging that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, calls the Cambridge cop “stupid” on national TV.

Read the whole thing--especially the history of the accused racist cop, James Crowley, who gave mouth-to-mouth recussitation to Celtics star Reggie Lewis 16 years ago in an attempt to save his life.

Is this so different from Obama's own racism?

Jeff Jacoby writes:

LATE LAST WEEK, the Obama administration demanded that the Israeli government pull the plug on a planned housing development near the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. The project, a 20-unit apartment complex, is indisputably legal. The property to be developed - a defunct hotel - was purchased in 1985, and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.

Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem, and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first black man to move into the previously all-white residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.

It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario: The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic, or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable - except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.

Obama's accusation of racism at his press conference was convenient--Andy McCarthy wonders whether the question, the last one asked, was pre-arranged. But the point is that accusing a cop of racism while admitting he does not have all the facts while simultaneously imposing segregation on Israel neighborhoods--about whose history he is apparently equally ignorant--does nothing for the issue of racism that Obama claims to be concerned about.

One more statement that seems to ring false.

UPDATE: As if to emphasize Jacoby's point, we have this:

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Jordanian government of King Abdullah is stripping Palestinians of their citizenship in order "to avoid a situation in which they would be 'resettled' permanently in the kingdom." The Jordanians claim they are acting "to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants," but the effect is to threaten both the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority with a massive influx of Palestinian refugees from Jordan. The move is what Barack Obama might call unhelpful. Yet there there isn't any noise from the "pro-peace" left. Most of the bloggers whom we typically rely on to highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people have yet to weigh in.

...Despite everything, the president and his supporters remain focused on Israeli action and inaction, on settlements and checkpoints. These are the impediments to peace. And if Israel started stripping Arabs of their citizenship, there would be outrage -- as there rightly was at Avigdor Lieberman's suggestion of loyalty oaths for Israeli Arabs. But here the Arabs have done precisely what Lieberman threatened to do. So why is the response from the left so muted now?

Read the whole thing.

Business as usual for the Arab world...and the White House.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and James Crowley and Henry Gates.

Video--Hamas: The Terror Elite

Powerline links to a particularly revealing video about Hamas:

David Horowitz has thus provided a great service by producing this five-minute flash video called "Hamas: The Terror Elite." The video explains that Hamas, heavily funded by Iran and Syria, grew out of the violent Islamist movement calling itself the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also the godfather organization to al Qaeda. Unlike the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose members it has hunted down since coming to power in Gaza, Hamas does not even pretend that it values nationhood for Palestinians over the total annihilation of Israel and its Jewish citizens.

The video also shows that Hamas hates Christians, Bahais and secular Muslim almost as ferociously as it hates Jews. Its "vice squads" murder unmarried people meeting together and torture homosexuals. Posturing as an organization providing social services, Hamas has brutally imposed its rule over the residents of Gaza by controlling the food supply.

Unfortunately, the video cannot be embedded--so click on the link and see it for yourself.

Technorati Tag: Terrorism and Hamas.

Today Was The Senate's Turn To Meet Jewish Leaders

I saw the following post by Jennifer Rubin, but have not yet found anything else about it. It seems like a more serious kind of meeting

An “outreach” meeting was held today by Democratic Senate leadership with a number of Jewish organizations, including the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, the Conservative Union, the UJC, AIPAC, J Street, the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Union for Reform Judaism, Bet Tzedek, the American Jewish World Service, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), the Jewish Labor Committee, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and Rabbi Levi Shemtov of Chabad. Senators in attendance included Stabenow, Levin, Whitehouse, Feingold, Reid, Burris, Cardin, Kaufman, Dodd, Brown, Menendez, Udall, Bennet (of Colorado), Specter, Franken, Kerry, and Klobuchar.

I am informed that many of the Jewish representatives took this valuable opportunity to make pitches on domestic issues having nothing specific to do with Israel or Iran. Their affiliation with Jewish groups gives them the chance to make their pitch on the liberal wish list of concerns on everything from abortion to cap-and-trade. Nevertheless, those with knowledge of the meeting said each group that was called up began by saying that Iran was the Number One issue for the community.

Rabbi Shemtov gave a pointed address, declaring that they are all for peace. He said: “Show me a Jew who is against peace and I will ask what is his biblical source. Show me a Jew who is for Palestinian suffering and I will ask his source. Just as there are many ways to be pro-Israel, there are many ways to be pro-peace.” (A dig at the left-wing groups that posit themselves as the ones in favor of a peaceful solution to the conflict.)

Both the ADL and the JCPA raised the issue of Iran. The most vocal on foreign policy, according to those with direct knowledge of the meeting, were Howard Kohr of AIPAC and David Harris of the AJC. Kohr spoke on Iran and “issues on the ground” in Israel. He pointed out the progress made by Israel in the West Bank, including the removal of over 150 roadblocks, and the economic progress that has achieved working with the Palestinians despite a worldwide recession. He explained that this is what is possible when Israel and the Palestinians work together. He took to task the Arab states that have not stepped up to help the PA. On Iran, he spoke in support of sanctions to aid the Obama administration engage Iran on more favorable terms and increase the pressure on Iran, to which Sen. Levin and Sen. Dodd responded favorably.

Two sources not associated with his organization singled out Harris, who spoke passionately about Obama’s one-sided Cairo speech, the lack of recognition of Israel’s historical narrative, and the apparent double standard that the Obama administration is now employing on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Sen. Lautenberg assured everyone that Obama was a staunch friend of Israel. J Street’s representative, despite his eager requests for recognition, was not called on by the senators.

Perhaps the tide has now turned and at least some American Jewish leaders are stepping to the forefront on Israel and Iran. If so, it would be a welcome development. [Emphasis added]

I assume there will at least be press releases by those groups that attended the meeting, at which point there will be more information. At the very least, one gets the distinct impression that unlike Obama--who called his meeting in order to be heard--the Senators called their meeting in order to listen, which they did.

Obama could learn a thing or two from the Senate, something he did not pick up on when he himself was a member of the Senate.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Will Obama See Netanyahu The Way Clinton Saw Arafat? (Updated)

Apparently Obama has upped the ante with israel by demanding a freeze on construction in east Jerusalem--in particular 20 apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood near Mount Scopus campus of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the National Police headquarters.

In a post from July 19, Arlene Kushner writes about the absurdity of Obama's latest demand:

"Good Move, Barack!"

Well, old Barack Hussein has finally done it. This megalomaniac who thinks he controls everything has gone too far:

In the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, there is a compound that was legally purchased by American businessman Irving Moskowitz in 1985. All papers are in order. The site originally belonged to the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, a Nazi collaborator and mentor of Yasser Arafat, and later became the Shepherd hotel. Plans now are to replace the hotel with a housing complex of some 20 to 30 apartments, to be purchased by Jewish families.

But Mahmoud Abbas was disturbed about these plans, because this would "shift the demographic balance" in the city. Which is to say that he covets eastern Jerusalem and wants to see it stay predominantly Arab.

(Clarification: It is predominantly Arab not because this was the historical situation, but because Jordan rendered the area Judenrein from 1949-67.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Reports are that Abbas complained to the Americans. And what happens when Abbas protests? Seems that the American president jumps. Michael Oren, our ambassador to the US, was summoned to the State Department and told that the Obama administration wanted us to stop the building.

"Nothing doing," Oren told them.

What's important here is that, no only will we refuse, but that PM Netanyahu was reportedly incensed about this, saying that Obama had "crossed a red line." The issue here is very clear:

Jerusalem united is undisputedly our sovereign capital. Jews are allowed to build, and live, anywhere in the city. "This has always been Israel's policy and this is the policy of the current government," declared the prime minister.
"...There is no prohibition against Arab residents buying apartments in the west of the city and there is no prohibition barring the city's Jewish residents from buying or building in the east of the city. That is the policy of an open city that is not divided."

Read the whole thing.

The question remains: what is pushing Obama to make more intrusive demands on Israel?

Powerline offers some possibilities:

Perhaps, in his efforts to impress the Arab world, he has simply become a messenger for Palestinian grievances. Perhaps he wanted to throw new demands into the mix in the hope of increasing his prospects for obtaining concessions on West Bank construction. It may also be the case that Obama doesn't know enough about Jerusalem and about Netanyahu's past practices to realize how ridiculous his latest demand would seem. And those in the State Department who do know probably would rather not educate the president.

In all events, Obama is losing credibility with Israel by the minute. And this loss of credibility would seem to diminish his ability not only to broker a peace agreement, but to be taken seriously on the narrow issue of settlements.

The bigger issue is Obama's credibility vis-a-vis brokering a peace agreement, since it will affect how he is perceived by the world at large. If he is seen as having caved to Israel, he will lose credibility not only with the Arab world, but with other countries that expected Obama to place real pressure and obtain major concessions from Israel on the way to a peace agreement in the not too distant future. Even countries that have no interest in pressuring Israel will be unimpressed with Obama's actions on the international stage.

Instead, will Obama find himself in a situation parallel to Bill Clinton, blaming Israel in general and Netanyahu in particular for a major failure in his record as President? While Obama is unlikely to say outright, "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one," it is unlikely that Obama will take kindly to being rebuffed on what he has made a focal point of his foreign policy at the beginning of his term.

Obama is not going to back down.

UPDATE: It is not directly related, but this caught my eye from JammieWearingFool: 'You're Going To Destroy My Presidency'

Why Obama's approach to Israel is collapsing

At least that is the question Steven Rosen is answering.

Putting aside the rebuttals to Obama that Rosen touches upon from Elliot Abrams and Dov Weissglass , Obama's statements themselves about the situation do not hold up to scrutiny. Take for example, Obama's claim that to American Jewish leaders on July 13 that during Bush's 8 year term, "We had no sunlight for eight years, but no progress either." Rosen writes:

Obama's conclusion that former U.S. President George W. Bush achieved nothing by working with Israel is amazing, considering that Bush brought the father of the Israeli settler movement, Ariel Sharon, to withdraw every soldier and every settler from every square inch of Gaza in August 2005 in the largest test of the "land for peace" concept in Israeli-Palestinian history. You would think the experience of the Bush years would have led the Obama team to an opposite conclusion: If settlements had been the obstacle to peace, why did Sharon's removal of 8,000 settlers from 21 settlements lead to the rise of Hamas, thousands of Qassam rockets fired at Israel, and war instead of peace?

But the issue is not merely Obama's highly questionable interpretation of Israel's actions over the past 8 years. Current events in response to Obama's 'tough love' approach towards Israel are also damning:

The theory of "tough love" toward Israel is also failing the test, if it is intended to win concessions from the Palestinian side. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who just completed intensive negotiations with an outgoing Ehud Olmert government that was continuing "natural growth" of settlements within the agreed Bush limits, now says the incoming Benjamin Netanyahu government must "stop all settlement activities in order to resume peace talks over final status issues." His chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, adds, "There can be no half-solutions with regards to the settlements."

...Now, Obama has generated inflated and unsatisfiable expectations in the Arab world, a belief that the U.S. president can and will force total Israeli capitulation and an absolute freeze. The Los Angeles Times reports, "President Obama's public quarrel with Israel ... is developing into a test of the U.S. leader's international credibility, say foreign diplomats and other observers." Anything less than a 100 percent halt "will not only disappoint the Arabs whom the president has courted, but also will be read by adversaries around the globe as a signal that the president can be forced to back down." Or, as Erekat himself put it on Voice of Palestine radio, "If settlement continues ... Arabs and Palestinians [will] believe that the American administration is incapable of swaying Israel to halt its settlement activities." A prominent Palestinian observer, Ghassan Khatib, states, "Should the U.S. government ... fail to make Israel abide by its international commitments, especially regarding ending the expansion of settlements, it will sabotage efforts to renew the political process."

Rosen concludes his analysis of Obama's Israel policy by noting Obama's latest demand regarding Jerusalem and the construction of 20 apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah area of Jerusalem:

How could the administration believe that any major Israeli political party could possibly agree to making any part of Jerusalem Judenrein? Just how far do they plan to go with this policy of confrontation?

With Obama's international creditability at stake--even as approval of both Obama and his economic plan plummet at home--we can probably expect more Chicago-style pressure on Israel.

Obama needs a win, and with enough pressure Israel is more malleable than the economy.

Related articles by Zemanta:

• US envoy to meet Palestinian leaders
• Memo From Jerusalem: Netanyahu's Talk of Peace Finds Few True Believers
• Memo From Jerusalem: Netanyahu's Talk of Peace Finds Few True Believers
• If At First You Don't Succeed: Obama's Next Step in Mideast Peace

Israel, Obama

Appeal Granted In Trial Of The Murderers of Ilan Halimi

It started in February 2006 when the news was first reported:

Criminals who tortured and killed a young hostage, keeping him naked and hooded and burning him repeatedly before throwing him from a train, were inspired by images from Iraq, according to a French prosecutor.

Even then, you had the sense that the media wanted to minimize what had happened and its implications:

o The victim's name (Ilan Halimi) was withheld.
o The fact that the victim was Jewish was not mentioned.
o The fact that the missing gangleader is Moslem was omitted.
o The possibility that when a Moslem kills a Jew there may be anti-Semitism was ignored.

Haaretz reported at the time:

"We think there is anti-Semitism in this affair," Rafi Halimi, Ilan's uncle, told the press.

"First, because the killers tried to kidnap at least two other Jews, and second, because of what they said on the phone," Rafi Halimi added. "When we said we didn't have 500,000 euros to give them they told us to go to the synagogue and get it," Rafi said. "They also recited verses from the Koran."

But the Paris public prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, told Parisian Jewish radio on Thursday that "no element of the current investigation could link this murder to an anti-Semitic declaration or action." The umbrella group of French Jewish secular organizations, CRIF, issued a statement Friday calling on the Jewish community "to keep calm, cautious and wait for developments in the investigation."

Eventually, the nature of the murder was admitted.

In April, all those involved were put on trial--behind closed doors, and on July 10 the verdict was announced:

A Paris court on Friday convicted a gang leader of the brutal 2006 killing of a young man prosecutors said was targeted because he was Jewish.

Youssouf Fofana, 28, was sentenced to life in prison. He was one of 27 people on trial in the kidnapping, torture and murder of Ilan Halimi, who was 23 years old.

Halimi was found naked, handcuffed and covered with burn marks near railroad tracks in the Essonne region south of Paris on Feb. 13, 2006. He died on the way to the hospital after being held captive for more than three weeks. The horrific death revived worries in France about lingering anti-Semitism and led to deep anxiety in France's Jewish community, the largest in western Europe.

As the verdict was announced, Fofana, who headed the self-styled "gang of barbarians," mimicked applause. Fofana's sentence means he will have no possibility of parole for 22 years.

His two main accomplices, Samir Ait Abdelmalek and Jean-Christophe Soumbou, were given sentences of 15 and 18 years, respectively. Another man who was a minor at the time also received a 15-year prison term, while Emma, a young girl used to attract Halimi, was sentenced to nine years in prison.

Two people, a man and a woman, were acquitted.

A lawyer for the Halimi family, Francis Szpiner, immediately called on France's justice minister to appeal the verdict because, he said, the sentences that went to the top lieutenant's of Fofana were too light and did not reflect the gravity of the crime.

Last week, it was announced that a French court had approved an appeal for longer sentences for those involved in the Halimi murder:

Fourteen of those convicted in the brutal slaying of young French Jew Ilan Halimi will face an appeal for increased jail terms. The appeal was granted following intervention from Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.

Some French jurists protested the move, and accused Alliot-Marie of giving in to political pressure.

A court had sentenced two people who took part in holding Halimi captive and torturing him to between 15 and 18 years in prison, while a woman who lured Halimi to within kidnappers' reach was sentenced to nine years. Prosecutors had requested that the attackers be sentenced to 20 and 12 years respectively.

Several members of the gang that carried out the murder were sentenced to as few as six months in prison.

Besides prison sentences more fitting for those who committed this heinous crime, perhaps the appeal will somehow increase the exposure that the crime has received in the media.

Related articles by Zemanta:

• 14 Convicted in Jew's Killing Will Be Retried in France
• Analysis: A conspiracy of silence
• Gang Jailed For Anti-Semitic Torture Death
• France Mulls Anti-Semitic Killers' Retrial
• Analysis: We need focus on why he was killed

Ilan Hlimi, Anti-Semitism, France

If Obama Can Meet With Jewish Leaders To Press Israel...

...then there are apparently some measures Israel can take as well--not the least of which is addressing the American public and the US Congress. Yoram Ettinger, former Ambassador and member of the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG), writes about the history of how Israel has responded to US pressure about Jerusalem and actions Israel should take to safeguard Jerusalem as Israel's capital:

A Jerusalem Response to Obama

Twenty five towns in the United States, from Massachusetts to Oregon, bear the name of Jerusalem – Salem. This is a reflection of the unique bonds that exist between the USA – since the 17th century Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers – and the Jewish capital, land, history and religion.

The US Congress – the most authentic representative of the American People – has passed a series of bills and resolutions, reaffirming the role of Jerusalem, as the indivisible capital of the Jewish State and the appropriate site for the US embassy in Israel. US constituents and their representatives on Capitol Hill are aware that 3,000 years before President Obama entered the White House, and 2,770 years before the US gained its independence, King David entered the City of Jerusalem – the Heart of the Jewish People. However, notwithstanding his speech at the 2009 AIPAC Conference, Obama wishes to repartition Jerusalem, to prohibit free Jewish construction and entice Arab construction there. Obama does not recognize pre-1967 Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

In 1949, at the end of the War of Independence, the US Administration, Europe and the UN exerted brutal pressure on Prime Minister Ben Gurion to refrain from declaring Jerusalem as the capital, to accept the internationalization of the city and to abstain from establishing facts on the ground. They also leaned on Israel to "end the occupation of the Negev" and absorb and compensate the 1948 Arab refugees. Ben Gurion's response was immediate and appropriate. He declared Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State, relocated government departments and agencies to Jerusalem, expanded construction all the way to the ceasefire lines, directed a massive number of Olim (immigrants) to Jerusalem and upgraded the transportation infrastructure to the city. Ben Gurion's determination and defiance clarified to the US that neither Jerusalem nor the Negev was subject to negotiation. It accorded Jerusalem the space required for security and development for the next generation.

In 1967, the US Administration and the international community threatened Prime Minister Eshkol that the reunification of Jerusalem, and any construction beyond the 1949 ceasefire line, would undermine severely Israel's global standing. Eshkol replied firmly by annexing the Old City, the eastern suburbs and substantial land reserves and built the Ramat Eshkol neighborhood (beyond the ceasefire lines).

In 1970-1972, Prime Minister Golda Meir defied the (Secretary of State) Rogers Plan, which called for Israel's retreat to the pre-1967 lines and for the transfer of the Old City to the auspices of the three religions. She laid the groundwork for a series of satellite neighborhoods around Jerusalem (beyond the "Green Line"): Neve' Ya'akov, Gilo, Ramot Alon and French Hill. These neighborhoods provided Jerusalem with the land required for development until today.

In 2009, President Obama is exerting psychological pressure on Israel to repartition Jerusalem, which would rob the city from essential land reserves. This land constitutes the prerequisite for the dramatic enhancement of Jerusalem's transportation, residential and industrial infrastructures, which are critical for the transformation of Jerusalem from a city of net Jewish emigration to a city of net Jewish immigration.

An appropriate fast-track-response to Obama – which aims at attracting entrepreneurs, job-creation, affordable housing, as well as providing Jerusalem with the developmental space for future generations should include:

• Upgrading "Begin Road" to a "Jerusalem Loop"
• Expanding freeways (to Jerusalem) 1 & 443
• Building freeway 45 to the coastal plain
• Fast railroad to Jerusalem
• Completion of light rail system in Jerusalem
• Construction of an international airport
• Traditional and high-tech industrial zones
• Residential construction zones
• Fast roads connecting new zones

Such dramatic enhancement of infrastructure requires an equally dramatic expansion of Jerusalem's city limit: eastward to the Dead Sea, Herodion and Mt. Ba'al Hazor, westward to Modi'in and Kirayt Sefer and southward to Beitar Ilit and Gush Etzion.

The battle over Jerusalem necessitates that the Jewish State join forces with the US public and its representatives in the House and Senate. This is the time to resurrect the 1999 initiative – which was co-sponsored by 84 Senators – to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. This is the time to encourage Israel's friends on the Hill, and especially the Chairmen of the Congressional and Senatorial campaign committees, to revisit bills and resolutions, which highlighted Jerusalem's indivisibility as the capital of Israel.

Jerusalem's growth requires – as it did during Ben Gurion's, Eshkol's and Golda's terms – a defiance of the US Administration. On the other hand, succumbing to Obama's pressure would exacerbate Jewish emigration from Jerusalem, subjecting the Jewish capital to its worst security and demographic threats since 1967.

Israel can only look to itself to safeguard its interests--and that has never been more true than now.

Israel, Jerusalem, Obama

1983: Arafat vs. Sharon On Palestinian Immigration To The US

On July 7, Patrik Jonsson wrote the following article for The Christian Science Monitor:

Risking Israel's ire, US takes 1,350 Palestinian refugees
The US is generally reluctant to resettle Palestinians, but these are refugees from Iraq who have been targeted since the invasion.

The State Department confirmed today that as many as 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians – once the well-treated guests of Saddam Hussein and now at outs with much of Iraqi society – will be resettled in the US, mostly in southern California, starting this fall.

James Taranto notes that the title of the article is off the mark--

What reason could Israel possibly have to object to this humanitarian gesture? As it turns out, the article offers no evidence whatever of the imputed Israeli irefulness.

...Thus, as Seth Lipsky has argued, Palestinian immigration to the U.S. would be very much in the Jewish state's interest. If the U.S. "doesn't want the refugee program to become an issue in its relationship with Israel," maybe it is because it doesn't want to be pressed into admitting more Palestinians.

So what would be the reaction to such a suggestion?

The article Taranto links to is interesting on the topic of bringing Palestinian Arab refugees into the US--from a perspective in 2000...and 1983.

From the perspective of 2000, when the article was written:

It would be to map out a plan for bringing the Palestinian Arab refugees to America. Such a plan would take the pressure off the antagonists in the Middle East, and it would give America a chance to benefit from an influx of educated, intelligent refugees at a time when the labor market is so tight that America desperately needs all the help it can get.

Lipsky writes that he suggested the idea of encouraging such immigration in August 2003 entitled "Invite the Palestinians to America," proposing the US provide Palestinian Arabs with 250,000 green cards a year for 10 years.

He writes that Secretary of State George Shultz considered such an idea at that time because of the situation in Lebanon at the time--there was a report of a State Department study suggesting that the US bring in 50,000 Palestinian Arab refugees from Lebanon on an emergency basis. This was before the Lebanese Phalangists massacre of Sabra and Chatilla and before Syria began shelling followers of Yasser Arafat.

What is most interesting is the reaction Lipsky got to his idea--from Arafat and Sharon:

At one point I asked Mr. Arafat directly about the proposal. The Journal's Karen Elliot House and I had gone to see him when he was staying at a state guest house in Amman. I asked him what he thought of the idea of America offering the Palestinian Arabs 250,000 green cards a year for a decade.

At first Mr. Arafat looked startled and huddled with his aides. Then he looked up and asked whether I was serious, remarking at one point that the Palestinians would have influence in the election of the U.S. president. I conceded that it wasn't a live policy initiative in Washington and explained I was asking about the principle. Mr. Arafat huddled with his aides again before replying: "Me, I want a visa to Jerusalem." When pressed, he asserted that I had a "lively imagination."

Arafat's wariness is understandable. Imagine if Palestinian Arabs--especially the Palestinian elite--came to the US: what would have become of Arafat's Palestinian state (with the power and money it would bring to Arafat's coffers). Lipsky's plan would not be to Arafat's benefit.

And Sharon?

The only Middle East official I talked with who had a different view was, ironically, Ariel Sharon, the right-of-center general from Israel's Likud Party. I asked about the idea while visiting him at his farm. He said that he didn't see why those Palestinian Arab refugees in land controlled by Israel couldn't stay. He wasn't blind to the obvious political problems and the challenge to Jewish nationalism. His point was that he has always wanted a large Israel and recognizes that it is an underpopulated country.

Interestingly though Sharon was not "blind to the obvious political problems and the challenge to Jewish nationalism," he was at the time 'blind' to demographic considerations when he defended the Disengagement--considerations that have since been proven false.

Maybe Sharon changed his mind between his meeting with Lipsky and his proposal for the Disengagement; maybe Sharon did not consider the demographic threat real and he was just looking for any argument to support the Disengagement plan.

In any case, the issue of Palestinian immigration as part of an approach towards lessening tensions in the Middle East has been broached before--including an attempt in Congress to block such an attempt. Right now, Americans are too busy thinking about the economy to consider the immigration of Palestinian Arabs.

But they will.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Palestinian Immigration.

Still Not Clear How Fatah Is Different Than Hamas

I came across an old post from November 2007:

On October 18, Representative Roy Blount introduced HR 278:

Urging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also Chairman of his Fatah party, to officially abrogate the 10 articles in the Fatah Constitution that call for Israel's destruction and terrorism against Israel, oppose any political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and label Zionism as racism.

According to Govtrack.us, this bill went nowhere.

Part of the bill reads:

Whereas in May 2006, President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed the `Prisoner's Plan', a document produced by jailed Palestinian terrorists, that calls for continued terrorism against Israel, does not accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and abrogates Palestinian obligations under the Declaration of Principles, signed at Washington, DC, on September 13, 1993, (commonly referred to as the `Oslo Accords'), and the 2003 Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (commonly referred to as the `Roadmap for Peace');

To sum it up: in May 2006, Abbas endorsed a plan that:

1. Calls for continued terrorism.
2. Does not recognize Israel.
3. Does not accept prior agreements.

I have pointed out before that based on Abbas' statements and actions, it is clear that he does not abide by the '3 preconditions' that are claimed to be required of Hamas before the US and Europe will open talks with them.

In endorsing the Prisoner's Plan of 2006, it is clear that the same requirements should have been made of Abbas all along--yet have not been.

It's about time we openly ask why not.

Technorati Tag: Abbas.

Israel Wins One In International Human Rights Court: Boycott Illegal (Updated)

According to the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights

1. It is illegal and a case of discrimination to boycott Israeli products,
2. The very act of making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods in no way constitute a violation of one's freedom of expression.

A major victory for Israel:

On Thursday the court ruled by a vote of 6-1 that the French court did not violate the freedom of expression of the Communist mayor of the small French town of Seclin, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products.

Jews in the region filed a complaint with the public prosecutor, who decided to prosecute Willem for "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." Willem was first acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal in September 2003 and he was fined €1,000.

His appeal to a higher French court was unsuccessful, and as a result he petitioned the European Court of Human rights in March 2005, saying his call for a boycott of Israeli products was part of a legitimate political debate, and that his freedom of expression had been violated.

The court, made up of judges from Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macedonia and the Czech Republic ruled that interference with the former mayor's freedom of expression was needed to protect the rights of Israeli producers. [emphasis added]

The idea that the rights of Israeli producers trumps an individual's freedom of expression seems to be a major breakthrough--the kind of decision that you are unlikely to find in the US, for example, though the way the court explained its reasoning made the conclusion obvious:

According to a statement issued by the court on Thursday, the court held the view that Willem was not convicted for his political opinions, "but for inciting the commission of a discriminatory, and therefore punishable, act. The Court further noted that, under French law, the applicant was not entitled to take the place of the governmental authorities by declaring an embargo on products from a foreign country, and moreover that the penalty imposed on him had been relatively moderate. [emphasis added]

Maybe this court could start addressing other 'discriminatory' acts--you know, like terrorism?

UPDATE: Harry's Place notes another case where this ruling would be applicable, in Scotland, and a commenter points out that a similar instance of boycotting occurred in Norway--though it is not clear what, if any, legal action was taken in response.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Boycotts.

Great Britain, Like Israel, Finding It No Great Shakes To Be A Friend Of The US

If there is any such relationship [with the US], the British people have seen no reward from it—only subordination and sacrifice.

It seems that Great Britain is catching on to something that has crossed the mind of Israelis: with the advent of the new Obama administration, it is not so clear if it pays to be a friend of the US.

Of course, at issue is also faith in Great Britain's own Prime Minister:

The British are losing faith in the Afghan war. If Barack Obama wants a continued British effort in Afghanistan, he must offer them clear signs of success within six months—and a realistic hope of a pullout.

In Britain’s latest opinion poll, nearly 60 percent of respondents wanted an early British exit from Afghanistan, against 36 percent who wanted the troops to stay. There are some special British factors behind those numbers—especially the low esteem of Gordon Brown’s government—but also some lessons for Obama, on the risks of fighting a war without a clear purpose or measurable success.

The benefit of an alliance with a country is what can be gained both in concrete as well as psychological terms. The latter played a part in the British-US alliance.

No more:

The British people are losing faith not just in the Afghan war but in the underlying assumptions that led them into it, and the war in Iraq—particularly the idea that Britain is a great power because of its “special relationship” with the United States.

If there is any such relationship, the British people have seen no reward from it—only subordination and sacrifice. Only a few days ago, in a little-noticed parliamentary answer, Brown was unable to name a single benefit to Britain from joining the Iraq war and occupation.

In addition, there is the issue of the implied subservience of Great Britain to the US:

If Obama wants a guide to the present British mood, he should study the campaign for the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who faces extradition to the United States for the crime of embarrassing the Pentagon. Very significantly, this has been taken up by the Daily Mail, the newspaper of mainstream Middle England. The newspaper condemned the one-sided extradition treaty which Tony Blair agreed with the Bush administration (which essentially forces Britain on demand to yield up anybody for trial in the United States), and the treaty has become a symbol of British subjection.

Bottom line, the people of Great Britain are wondering whether the sacrifices they are being asked to make, the lack of concrete benefits, and the implied subservience to the US are all worth the intangible plus of being allied with the US:

A growing number of British voters no longer care about being on any top table [of nations], and they are certainly not prepared to spend taxes to prove it or ask their soldiers to die for the sake of prestige. They have seen no evidence of special British influence over the United States, or any other country. “Little Englander” parties made important gains in Britain’s recent European elections.

The British people hated fighting George W. Bush’s wars. They still love Barack Obama, but they do not like fighting his wars, either. American voters may make the same discovery, if they too see indefinite sacrifice without reward.

The British are not willing to put up with it any longer--and apparently Israel is not either, the difference being that in the case of Israel, the move to draw back from the US is coming from the head of the Israeli government.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, responding to the reports that Washington had asked Israel not to build 20 apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in east Jerusalem, near Mount Scopus and the National Police headquarters, said, "I would like to reemphasize that united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel. Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means - inter alia - that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.

"This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by - or rented to - Arab residents and we did not interfere," he said.

"This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city."

Netanyahu said Jerusalem was an open, undivided city "that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation. We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."

In attempting to apply his ban on settlement growth to Jerusalem, Obama--who sees the Jewish tie to the land defined by the Holocaust instead of the long history of Jewish ties to the land--continues to show a lack of understanding of history.

But if the Israel-US relationship is not what it once was, Abbas may be in for an even bigger shock. Writing in The National Review, Elliot Abrams writes about the consequences of the inevitable compromise on the issue of Israeli settlements:

look at what the Obama administration has done to its friends in Ramallah as well. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and his negotiator Saeb Erekat are on record demanding a total freeze — including in Jerusalem, without a time limit, all over the West Bank, every settlement, all sorts of buildings. No exceptions for construction now under way, for kindergartens, not even (or, perhaps, especially?) for synagogues. Where do they stand when the United States government announces its deal — allowing several thousand units to be completed and remaining silent on Jerusalem? Compared with the current situation — daily denunciations of settlements by Washington, while Palestinians are asked to do nothing — all of a sudden the U.S. will seem to have switched sides. All of a sudden the actual construction work you see before you is okay, Washington blesses it; and as to Jerusalem there will be no stated limits at all. “There are no middle-ground solutions for the settlement issue: Either settlement activity stops or it doesn’t stop,” Erekat told Voice of Palestine radio last week. Under all the possible compromises, it doesn’t stop — or so it will seem to Erekat and his boss Abbas, and to any Palestinian listening to Hamas’s radio and TV denunciations of such a deal.

Which is why the actual Palestinian position is to pray for Mitchell to fail.

So, this Obama settlement mania will end up damaging not only Netanyahu but Abbas as well. What a triumph of American diplomacy.

After making a point during his election campaign that the US would once again be respected around the world--by not throwing its weight around, Obama seems to be as intrusive on the world stage as he is domestically on the economic one.

It comes as no surprise that the resentment overseas--and at home--is growing.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Great Britain.

Israeli Settlements: Olmert vs. Obama

Back in June, in response to White House denial of a US-Israel understanding on the settlements, Elliot Abrams (former member of the National Security Council under President Bush) wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal: Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements--The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.

Now former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has entered the fray:

The settlements are a known issue of contention between Israel and the United States; although America has not supported their construction, it has, on some occasions, recognized the realities that have developed over 40 years.

Sharon reached understandings with the U.S. administration regarding the growth and building of settlements, as part of the road map. The understandings included that:

-- No new settlements would be constructed.

-- No new land would be allocated or confiscated for settlement construction.

-- Any construction in the settlements would be within current building lines.

-- There would be no provision of economic incentives promoting settlement growth.

-- The unauthorized outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled (a commitment that Israel, regrettably, has not yet fulfilled).

These understandings provided a working platform and, in my opinion, a proper balance to allow essential elements of stability and normality for Israelis living in settlements until their future would be determined in a permanent-status agreement. I adopted these understandings and followed them in close coordination with the Bush administration.

Moreover, during the run-up to Annapolis and in meetings there, I elaborated to the U.S. administration and the Palestinian leadership that Israel would continue to build in the settlements in accordance with the above criteria.

Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.

The insistence now on a complete freeze on settlement construction -- impossible to completely enforce -- will not promote Palestinian efforts to enhance security measures; the institution building that is so crucial for the development of a Palestinian state; better movement and access to the Palestinians; nor an improved economy in the West Bank. Nor will it weaken the Hamas government in Gaza. It will not bring greater security to Israel, help improve Israel's relations with the Arab world, strengthen a coalition of moderate Arab states or shift the strategic balance in the Middle East.

Read the whole thing.

Jennifer Rubin writes that Olmerts column adds to the growing perception that the White House position on the US-Israel agreements on the settlements is not only inaccurate, but not completely honest either:

Olmert has in essence called out the Obama administration for reneging on U.S. commitments and misrepresenting recent history in order to pursue its misguided and wholly unproductive focus on the settlements. We now have both sides of the relevant history corroborating the applicable understandings and making clear that were it not for the U.S. assurances, Israel would not have proceeded with discussions (however unproductive) at Annapolis. And by bringing up the latest instance of Israeli peace gestures, Olmert strikes at the heart of Obama’s fractured history — the false premise that settlements, rather than Palestinian violence and rejectionism, are the main impediment to lasting peace.

The Obama administration took a gamble — banking that they could recast history to suit their ends. But now their version of history, one-sided and false, has been revealed. They have sacrificed credibility and the trust of our one true ally. And for what? They have simply encouraged the very same rejectionism that is at the root of the stalemate.

Obama has been criticized for being less than honest about his own personal campaign promises. The issue has now expanded to include international agreements that the US has in place with foreign countries, and the reaction of the Obama administration denying that promises and agreements were made in the first place is not going to be reassuring to our allies.

Obama should keep in mind that the foundation of any peace agreement is the trust between the parties--and that has to include trust in the peace broker, who is likely to end up making promises that will be intended to assuage doubts between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Ehud Olmert.

Meet Great Britain--The New 'Great Satan' In Iran

Could it be that Great Britain is the new...Satan?

It seems that as much as Obama may want to apologize to Iran for past US transgressions, there is another country that has even more to answer more. The US may be the Great Satan, but Great Britain is the Greater Satan:

Since Iranians took to the streets to protest the official vote results, the government has expelled two British diplomats, kicked out the longtime British Broadcasting Corp. bureau chief, and arrested British Embassy staff members, accusing them of fomenting the unrest. Last week, an adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Britain "worse than America" for its alleged interference in Iran's post-election affairs.

Although complaints about British meddling are enjoying a resurgence, they are hardly new. For many Iranians, especially those whose memories go back several decades, the British reach is long and deep.

"To the older generation of Iranians, it's as if the sun has never gone down on the British Empire," said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, director of Middle Eastern studies at Syracuse University. "They are considered the masters of political intrigue, and players such as the U.S. are considered to be novices, new kids on the block."

It is not clear whether this is enough to inspire British Prime Minister Brown to do 'an Obama' and start apologizing for misdeeds past and present.

Not surprisingly, Iran's negative view towards Great Britain seems to mirror Israel's view not only of undo British interference in its countries affairs, but also Israel's suspicions of a well known British product:

In every Iranian crisis, the BBC has come in for blame, perhaps in part because of its history in Iran. "BBC Persian service has a very specific position in Iran -- it was created in 1941 to help with the overthrow of Reza Shah," Ansari said. By the late 1970s, however, "it played a role that was at odds with the British government. . . . It gave Khomeini a lot more airtime than they thought was useful or helpful," he said, referring to the late ayatollah and leader of the revolution.

Still, many in Iran find it hard to separate the BBC from the British government. The station's popularity there has stoked suspicion, as has its recent introduction of Farsi-language satellite television service.

"Because the BBC is seen as having been so important during the revolution, with the fact that the BBC is opening a new channel of communication, there's a feeling that perhaps the BBC is gearing up for a new revolution," said Dick Davis, a professor of Persian at Ohio State University.

Read the whole thing.

The article makes clear that nothing is set in stone, and Iranian sentiment could again focus on the US as the main enemy--now let's see if Obama can make use of that.

Technorati Tag: Iran and US and Great Satan.

Netanyahu's Stress On Economic Peace Plan Being Validated In West Bank

Earlier this month, talk about Netanyahu's Economic Peace Plan--the idea that upgrading the Palestinian economy takes precedence over talk of a second Palestinian state--was decidedly negative:

Prior to the elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented his program for "economic peace," which he said would improved the quality of life for Palestinians in the West Bank. However, 100 days after having formed his coalition government, there is no practical progress on economic projects.

The main reason for this is the refusal of senior Palestinian Authority officials to cooperate with Netanyahu and Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, who has been assigned the task of promoting the "economic peace" initiative.

Yet, according to an article in yesterday's New York Times, the West Bank economy is experiences an amazing turnaround:

“You don’t appreciate the value of law and order until you lose it,” Rashid al-Sakhel, the owner of a carpet store, said as he stood in his doorway surveying the small wonder of bustling streets on a sunny morning. “For the past eight years, a 10-year-old boy could order a strike and we would all close. Now nobody can threaten us.”

For the first time since the second Palestinian uprising broke out in late 2000, leading to terrorist bombings and fierce Israeli countermeasures, a sense of personal security and economic potential is spreading across the West Bank as the Palestinian Authority’s security forces enter their second year of consolidating order.

The International Monetary Fund is about to issue its first upbeat report in years for the West Bank, forecasting a 7 percent growth rate for 2009. Car sales in 2008 were double those of 2007. Construction on the first new Palestinian town in decades, for 40,000, will begin early next year north of Ramallah. In Jenin, a seven-story store called Herbawi Home Furnishings has opened, containing the latest espresso machines. Two weeks ago, the Israeli military shut its obtrusive nine-year-old checkpoint at the entrance to this city, part of a series of reductions in security measures.

This is something that was already evident last year, and has clearly been progressing this year. And the best part of the economic turnaround is that it is leading to a political turnaround as well:

Whether all this can last and lead to the consolidation of political power for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, as the Obama administration hopes, remains unclear. But a recent opinion poll in the West Bank and Gaza by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, a Palestinian news agency, found that Fatah was seen as far more trustworthy than Hamas — 35 percent versus 19 percent — a significant shift from the organization’s poll in January, when Hamas appeared to be at least as trustworthy.

“Two years ago I couldn’t have even gone to Nablus,” said Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who serves as international envoy to the Palestinians, after a smooth visit this week. “Security is greatly improved, and the economy is doing much better. Now we need to move to the next stage: politics.”

The aim of American and European policy is to stitch Palestinian politics back together by strengthening the Palestinian Authority under the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas, which favors a two-state solution with Israel, while weakening the Islamists of Hamas, who rule in Gaza. Fatah says it will hold its first general congress in 20 years in early August to build on its successes, but it remains unclear if the meeting will take place.

As important as the turnaround of Fatah vis-a-vis Hamas may be, equally important is the claim made in the article that both the US and Europe want not only to strengthen Fatah, but also to weaken Hamas as well--that seems to go against indications that both the US and Europe were interested not only in opening dialog with Hamas, but also to waive the '3 preconditions': recognizing Israel, stopping terrorist attacks, and honoring past agreements. If the renewed West Bank economy and the rise in Fatah's fortunes lead to the isolation of Hamas on the international scene, that would be an added benefit.

The reason for the entire turnaround goes back to the basics in dealing with Palestinian terrorism:

Asked to explain why the West Bank’s fortunes were shifting, a top Israeli general began his narrative with a chart showing 410 Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2002, and 4 in 2008.

“We destroyed the terrorist groups through three things — intelligence, the barrier and freedom of action by our men,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with military rules. “We sent our troops into every marketplace and every house, staying tightly focused on getting the bad guys.”

This is a validation of something that was said in 2001 by then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw about comparing negotiations with the IRA and with the Palestinian Arabs:

of course, negotiations far, far better, not (ph) infinitely better, than military action.

As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we welcome hugely the progress has been made following the Good Friday Agreement.

It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism at the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.

If the West Bank really does experience an economic and cultural revival, it will be because Israel defeated the Intifada and suicide bombers and the thinking that went along with it--because the West surely hasn't.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and West Bank.

IDF Soldiers Give Eyewitness Accounts To Counter Anonymous Accusations

From an email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Michael Dickson, Director, SWU Israel Office
Cell: (+972) 52 409 9957 or mdickson@standwithus.com

July 16^th 2009

SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST NEW IDF ALLEGATIONS

IN RESPONSE TO ‘BREAKING THE SILENCE’ REPORT, NEW TESTIMONIALS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO SOLDIERSSPEAKOUT, A WEBSITE THAT FEATURES EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM IDF SOLDIERS

SOLDIERS REQUESTED THAT STANDWITHUS LAUNCH WWW.SOLDIERSSPEAKOUT.COM TO SHARE THEIR PERSONAL AND POSITIVE COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE WORLD

“Breaking the Silence are breaking the rules for any kind of serious reporting”

JERUSALEM (July 15, 2009) – A wave of IDF soldiers have come forward to video their positive, eye-witness testimony to www.soldiersspeakout.com, outraged by a report recently released by ‘Breaking the Silence’, which alleges misconduct by IDF soldiers during Operation cast lead towards Palestinian civilians.

StandWithUs, an international education organization, created the website at the request of IDF members in its student programs who felt compelled to speak out. www.soldierspeakout.com contains testimonials from soldiers who share their personal, positive and humanitarian experiences of serving in the IDF. (This independent initiative is not coordinated with either the IDF or the Israeli Government.)

“Breaking the Silence is breaking the rules for any kind of serious reporting”, said Michael Dickson, Israel director of StandWithUs, “They are a fringe group with a political agenda who have collected anonymous ‘testimony,’ the majority of which is based on hearsay and rumor. One account is from a soldier not even present at the time of the alleged grievance. In contrast, the soldiers featured on soldiersspeakout.com give testimony on camera without their face blurred and from their own personal experience.”

Explains Roz Rothstein, international director of StandWithUs, “we created this website because a few isolated allegations from ‘anti-war’ Israeli soldiers are being used to defame the IDF. Yet the IDF has over 700,000 citizen soldiers and reservists - thousands of whom served in Gaza - who try to live up to its high ethical standards. To slander an IDF campaign on the basis of the anonymous reports of around 0.2% of those serving at the time is ridiculous.”

The soldiers talk both about the challenges of facing a terrorist enemy that embedded itself with civilians for protection and about their determination to keep to the army’s moral code of conduct in this situation. Idan, who served in an elite Givati unit, talks about his ordering of his soldiers to clean up a Palestinian home after they were in it and how they collected items from their own food parcels from home and left it for the family. Lior, a combat soldier in the Gaza campaign, recounts instances of seeing individuals who they suspected were terrorists, but they were not sure so they did not shoot. Another soldier, Yaron, concurs, telling of the order he and his comrades were given to avoid civilian casualties.

Noam, an officer in the Givati unit discusses how many booby-trapped houses they faced and how the bombs would have killed both IDF soldiers and Palestinian civilians had they not been disarmed.

The new footage on www.soldiersspeakout.com joins other testimony in which soldiers share experiences rarely told by the international media. Nina, a 25 year-old IDF medic who served in Gaza, recounts how she and other IDF soldiers treated wounded Palestinian men, women and children and arranged for them to be flown to Israeli hospitals for medical care. She explains that IDF medics are taught not to see nationality, but rather to treat the wounded with the severest injuries first, even if they are terrorists.

Amir, a military reserve paramedic in the Givati unit in Gaza, confirms Nina’s account. “I was present when injured Palestinians were flown out by IDF chopper to Israeli hospitals. Imagine the cost of that helicopter, but we believe that human life is of the highest value – their identity doesn’t matter.” Amir’s video relates how he helped a pregnant Palestinian woman in labor while he was searching for terrorists in Gaza.

“Breaking the Silence are misleading in their name and their aim,” remarks Dickson, “There is no silence to break. Israel is an open and democratic society that regularly investigates its own actions, but this one-sided and shoddy report fails to stress the context of the war – a battle against Hamas terrorists hiding behind civilians and it omits names, ranks and facts about soldiers and their stories. That this one-sided group receive funding from both the EU and the British Embassy in Tel Aviv deserves to be investigated.”

• The Soldiers Speak Out website is at www.soldiersspeakout.com

• The soldiers are prepared to conduct interviews by request – please email mdickson@standwithus.com or call +972 (0)52 409 9957.


StandWithUs, an international, non-profit Israel education organization, hosts speakers and conferences, offers website resources and creates brochures and materials about Israel that are distributed globally. Based in Los Angeles, the organization has offices across the U.S. and in Israel and the UK. SWU was founded in 2001 in response to the public’s need and desire for mainstream information about the Arab-Israeli conflict. StandWithUsCampus helps college students challenge anti-Israel bias. http://www.standwithus.com and http://www.standwithuscampus.com and http://www.standwithus.co.il

# # #

--
Avi Posnick
Outreach Coordinator
StandWithUs East Coast
Office: (212) 398-2524
Fax: (212) 842 0161
Cell: (516) 698 3449

www.standwithus.com
www.standwithuscampus.com
www.learnisrael.org

"Follow StandWithUs on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/standwithus"

Technorati Tag: Break The Silence and Gaza and Operation Cast Lead.

Again, The Media Jumps On Questionable Report Of Israeli War Crimes (Updated)

Back in March, Haaretz treated us to the headline:

IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement

When I blogged about the story, there were already indications that there was less to the story than met the eye--with anonymous sources and accounts based on hearsay and people who were not even there where the alleged issues took place.

Now, the issue of alleged war crimes by the IDF has resurfaced and like clockwork, the media again has jumped on the story--thanks to the NGO Breaking The Silence, which claims to have testimony by IDF soldiers that support the accusation.

Apparently, just as J Street leapfrogged to prominence through controversy--the Palin disinvitation to speak at the anti-Ahmadinejad rally--so too Breaking The Silence hopes to parlay accusations of IDF 'war crimes' in Gaza into prominence.

Amir Mizroch, The Jerusalem Post News Editor, gives some background on how Breaking The Silence went about breaking the story:

It promised the exclusive to Haaretz, because it knows the report would have gotten prominence there. What it didn’t count on was Haaretz learning its lesson from its huge mistake last time it was given a report into alleged Israel Defense Forces human rights violations in Gaza. Last time Haaretz didn’t do its journalistic job and published unsubstantiated hearsay. This time Haaretz military reporter Amos Harel had the presence of mind to send the Breaking The Silence report to the IDF for response.

My military reporter, Yaakov Katz, was in the right place at the right time, and got hold of most of the report himself. Breaking The Silence tried to get Yaakov off the story because it didn’t fit into their strategy to have The Jerusalem Post take a critical look at their report. They promised Yaakov they would give him other stories in the future if he dropped this one for now. Katz refused, rightly so, and we published.

Several days before all this, Breaking The Silence gave out their report to a wide array of foreign media, and not to the IDF to probe into itself, with the caveat that they observe the embargo until after Haaretz published the report first. All of which shows their original intent was to get as much uncritical worldwide publicity for their report. Legitimate, sure. Fair? Not so sure.

The fact that the group receives funding from foreign entities such as the EU, Great Britain's Department For International Development (a government agency), and Dutch organizations as well also serves to call into question their motives.

Dan Kosky, the communications director of NGO Monitor, writes in The Guardian about why the report put out by Breaking The Silence is unreliable:

A brief consideration of the report's flawed methodology exposes the absence of any reasonable research standards. By Breaking the Silence's own admission, the allegations are comprised of "the testimony of around 30 combatants" – a fraction of the thousands of Israeli combat troops deployed during the Gaza conflict. This extremely narrow and presumably hand-picked sample is an absurd basis on which to pass judgment, and even these limited testimonies were entirely unverifiable.

All statements are anonymous, and so-called "evidence" is further compromised by the absence of any details of where and when alleged incidents occurred. Consequently, were the report intended to prompt the IDF to investigate individual allegations, Breaking the Silence has made this impossible.

As for the allegations themselves, they frequently rely upon secondhand evidence and hearsay. Media reports have claimed that the study reveals the use of "permissive" rules of engagement in Gaza. Yet a soldier admits that "I wasn't witness to such cases but I heard people talking, that soldiers shot at people here and there." A chain of whispers is hardly a concrete foundation to condemn an army's response to incessant rocket fire on its civilians.

Breaking The Silence has been successful and their story is being reported--as fact--throughout the media. Now there remains just one more thing to do:

Determine the veracity of the story.

UPDATE: Check out Soldiers Speak Out:

A wave of IDF soldiers have come forward to video their positive, eye-witness testimony to www.soldiersspeakout.com, outraged by a report recently released by ‘Breaking the Silence’, which alleges misconduct by IDF soldiers during Operation cast lead towards Palestinian civilians.

StandWithUs, an international education organization, created the website at the request of IDF members in its student programs who felt compelled to speak out. www.soldierspeakout.com contains testimonials from soldiers who share their personal, positive and humanitarian experiences of serving in the IDF. (This independent initiative is not coordinated with either the IDF or the Israeli Government.)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

[Hat tip: HonestReporting and Backspin]

Technorati Tag: Breaking The Silence and Gaza and Operation Cast Lead.

Clinton: Oh, By The Way--Palestinian Arabs Have To Do Their Share Too! (2 Updates)

During Obama's meeting with Jewish leaders, the president claimed that the leaders had him all wrong:

In the meeting, according to participants, Obama expressed strong support for Israel and acknowledged a 'misperception' that the US was disproportionately pressuring Israel, indicating that the US would be doing more to prod the Palestinians and Arab countries forward.

This was in response to a 'misperception' held by more than just one of the leaders attending the meeting with Obama:

The Orthodox Union subscribes to the serious concern, expressed by several participants in the meeting, that the Administration has allowed a perception to develop that the onus for progress toward peace between Israel and Arabs lies with Israel, and also that the U.S. is pressuring Israel to undertake various steps while demanding little of the Palestinians or other Arab governments. We welcome the President’s recognition that this perception gap is problematic and his stated intention to recalibrate his Administration’s actions in the coming weeks to make clear that the U.S. insists that concrete steps – with regard to incitement and other anti-Israel activities – must be taken by the Palestinians and others.

Sure enough: no sooner said than done. During her foreign policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the issue:

And we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict. [emphasis added]

Sadat and Hussein are interesting examples for role models: there were at least 12 failed attempts to assassinate Hussein while Sadat was in fact assassinated.

In any case, the sudden US interest in Abbas and the Palestinian Authority actually taking an active role in the peace process might come as a bit of a surprise to Palestinian Arabs--or it might just be put down as a sop by Obama after his meeting with Jewish leaders on Monday.

After all, after Obama's Cairo speech, where he praised Muslims and Islam--it is only Secretary of State Clinton who is claiming that more than just Israeli concessions are required. While the US is demanding a concrete step from Israel to freeze the settlements, there is no specific demand made of the Palestinian Arabs, and Clinton praises the PA for taking actions on security. Imagine if the Secretary of State praised the sacrifice Israel made in executing the Disengagement--thereby emphasizing the lack of action taken by the Palestinians.

Clinton warns the Palestinian Arabs to "refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely"--an odd circumlocution--instead of pushing for something meaningful, such as requiring Abbas to stop naming things after Palestinian terrorists.

Secretary of State Clinton's speech only serves to emphasize the very tangible lack of balance between the demands being made of Israel and the passing reference to the Palestinian Arabs.

The OU is more sanguine:

This is a framing which friends of Israel should particularly welcome. It is the Palestinian/Arab side which continues to foster anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and more in their schools and media, and continues to deny the basic legitimacy of Israel to exist (in contrast to Israel which has said and acted time and again to recognize and potentially realize the rights of Palestinians).

It remains to be seen whether the US will demand action on any of these issues with anything near the persistence and forcefulness with which it addresses Israeli settlements.

UPDATE: Greg Sargent, who had an advanced copy of Clinton's speech, predicted:

In a major foreign policy speech this afternoon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will take direct aim at Arab states for not doing their part towards securing Mideast peace, demanding that “all sides” do more to crack down on the “cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict,” according to an advance excerpt I’ve obtained.

Clinton’s muscular tone towards Arab states could blunt criticism from conservatives who say that the Obama administration has disproportionately pressured Israel by demanding a complete halt to settlement activity...

Clinton will criticize Arab states for sitting on their hands while awaiting a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the wake of the 2002 Saudi peace proposal...

Clinton’s insistence on action from “all sides,” Israel included, will likely spark more criticism from the right. [emphasis added]

With all due respect to Sargent, if you want to see Clinton take direct aim and be demanding with a muscular tone and criticize with a sense of insistence -- that would be her addressing the issue of Israeli settlements:

With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.

I look forward to the kind of evenhanded pressure on both sides that Obama claims to be applying--but let's be honest: we are nowhere near that point.

At the very least, Clinton had better be more 'muscular in tone' than demanding from the Palestinians that they "refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely."

UPDATE II: Abe Greenwald doesn't see what all the fuss is about Clinton's speech:

She starts out by defending the indefensible settlement red herring, goes on to praise the Palestinians for improving security conditions, and calls on “all sides” to act against cultures of hate and intolerance. Did someone on her staff go through the speech beforehand and make sure to take out anything that referenced the world as it really is?

What about the perpetual reality that is Palestinian terrorism? The continued rocket attacks? The non-stop campaign of dehumanizing propaganda? The overarching fact that Palestinian leadership wants neither peace nor two states?

...So what’s left? Surreal rhetoric about cruel settlements and positive Palestinian security steps. On Israel, the administration, Hillary included, is a bust.

More about Clinton's speech at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Human Rights Watch Can Never Be Trusted Again (Updated)

It all started in May when the Arab News reported on a delegation from Human Rights Watch visiting Saudi Arabia where they were given a 'welcoming dinner' in Riyadh:

HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on Israel violating human rights and international law during its war on Gaza earlier this year.

"Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.

Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions. "US President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel and the Hamas authorities in Gaza to cooperate with the United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza. The mission will be headed by the reputable Justice Richard Goldstone."

At the dinner, Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW's International Board of Directors, requested funding for the group.

In June, David Bernstein wrote about what Human Rights Watch was doing recently in Saudi Arabia:

A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?

No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations."[emphasis added]

Jeffrey Goldberg picked up on the story in the Atlantic and notes that Whitson wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal rebutting Berstein's claim that while in Saudi Arabia, HRW said "not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country." What Whitson does not address, however, is the accusation that she tried "to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's 'battles' with the 'pro-Israel pressure groups'?"

Goldberg wrote to Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch to find out if that particular claim was true. After exchanging numerous messages with Roth in search of a straight answer, Roth finally responded:

That's certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn't a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story--part of that pitch--is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.

Goldberg, who also writes that "I'm not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel," concludes:

In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity. [emphasis added]

Back at The Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein has blogged about reaction to his Wall Street Journal article--which started out as a post on the blog--Bernstein takes a slightly softer approach:

I'd put it differently then Goldberg. There's no evidence that HRW's pursuit of dollars has compromised its integrity, at least not yet. Rather, HRW's pursuit of dollars has starkly revealed the underlying biases that it previously has denied having. But really, anyone who has been paying attention shouldn't be surprised that HRW's credibility on Israel-related issues approaches zero. [emphasis added]

One thing seems certain, HRW seems incapable of rational discourse on the topic of Israel when they should be doing their utmost to present an image of neutrality.

The same could also be said of Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at HRW. Amira Hass writes about her interview with Garlasco:

Garlasco is not prepared to accept without question the Israeli claim that Hamas hides behind civilians and makes use of civilians. "Israelis are very quick to say they are doing it, but very short on proof. By keeping the independent people out, they leave doubt in people's minds." Furthermore, he believes, Israel has a record of not telling the truth: "They said in Lebanon they did not use cluster bombs. We found 4 million. They evade answering that they use phosphorus, and we stand there every day watching. They claim to have bombed a truck full of Grad missiles, and according to witnesses who spoke with Haaretz, it turned out to be a truck with oxygen tanks. Not everything that is long is a missile. How can anyone trust the Israeli military?'"

Garlasco's inability to maintain a modicum of neutrality and integrity, replaced by bitter cynicism is understandable--after all, it's not as if Hamas goes around bragging about using human shields!

Oh, wait:

Which leaves of course the obvious question: How can anyone trust Human Rights Watch?

UPDATE: On the topic of Garlasco and HRW, Ed Lasky wrote back in 2006 in connection with the Gaza Beach blast:

Lately he [Garlasco] has been peddling the Haditha massacre myth... which has been seriously questioned. He has said, " "What happened at Haditha appears to be outright murder. The Haditha massacre will go down as "Iraq's My Lai" in his view.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH is a notoriously anti—Israel advocacy group funded by George Soros—who, he proudly admits, is anti—Israel. According to NGO Monitor and well—respected Professor Anna Bayefsky, Human Rights Watch "has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to anti—Semitism and anti—Israel bias."

He has participated in panels with anti—Semitic conspiracy—monger Karen Kwiatkowski.

In other words, how independent is this expert and how wrong was it for the Independent to rely on him?

The answer to that question is getting clearer all the time.

More at Memeorandum

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Human Rights Watch and Sarah Leah Whitson and Ken Roth and Marc Garlasco.

Israel: From "Painful Concessions" To "Serious Self-Reflection" (Updated)

Back in 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made it clear that the time was right for peace:

The Israeli Prime Minister reiterated his readiness to recognise a Palestinian state and to make "painful concessions" in return for "real peace". But he hedged on whether he would evacuate Jewish settlements. That reluctance prompted the Palestinians and the Israeli left to question his sincerity.

The victory of Anglo-American forces in Iraq, Mr Sharon said in an interview with the Haaretz newspaper, had created an opportunity that did not exist before. "The Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular have been shaken. There is therefore a chance to reach an agreement faster than people think." He added: "I am 75. I feel that my goal and my purpose are to bring this nation to peace and security. I think that this is something that I have to leave behind me."

"Painful concessions" became the catchphrase that would be repeated over and over by both Sharon and then by Olmert, just as evacuating the Israeli settlements has become the concession de jure for Israel to make (the Disengagement having been a mere appetizer).

Then, Israelis were told by their leaders what would have to be done to proceed further on the evasive road to peace.

Now we have gone from evasive to invasive as Israel now finds itself lectured by the US not only that it simply has not done enough, but that it needs a political time-out, while it sits in the corner and considers what it really should be doing--under the tutelage of Obama.

Obama informed the meeting of Jewish leaders that he himself has created an opportunity that not only did not exist before, but may not come again:

Mr. Ben-Ami (of J Street) said in an interview that the president ‘’did a masterful job of pushing while hugging.’’ Mr. Obama spoke of a ‘’rock-solid strategic alliance with Israel,’’ he said, but also strongly defended his call for Israel to stop building Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories. He said Mr. Obama argued that he is the right man, at the right time, to press for a lasting Middle East peace agreement.

“He was very humble about it, not bragging, not talking himself up, but just being clear that there’s a set of assets that he brings,’’ Mr. Ben-Ami said. “That somebody with his ability to speak to the Muslim world, the political capital that he brings internationally as well as domestically – that isn’t going to come around all that often, and we have a narrow window before time runs out. He was very clear that this is a moment that has to be seized and he intends to seize it.’’

Marty Peretz notes the air of condescension:

It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem.

William Kristol, on the other hand, notes the absurdity:

“Serious self-reflection!” It’s really good that Barack Obama is reminding the leaders and people of Israel to engage in that. I hope they’re up to it. After all, what do Israelis know about reflecting on, and living with, the life and death consequences of political decisions? What do Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon -- either as individuals or as leaders -- know about war and peace? These are guys -- and the Israelis are a people -- who just coast along, taking an easy path, never debating, never thinking, never questioning, never second-guessing...and never making or asking their fellow citizens to make sacrifices.

This comes from the new leader of the US [leader of the Free World? (gulp)] whose inexperience becomes more apparent as his approval numbers sink.

Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod, on the other hand -- they’re seriously self-reflective individuals. Look at their wide experiences at peace and in war. Look how they’ve had to grapple with life and death decisions for decades. For them, it’s not just talk and spin and positioning. The American president and his advisors -- they’ve made personal sacrifices, they’ve come to grips with the tough choices over their decades of accomplishment in public life. They’ve got the standing to lecture the people and leaders of Israel on the need for self-reflection.

What it boils down to is that while Obama may be the president of the United States--a position that he earned politically--that does not mean that Obama has earned the right to lecture another country about its very survival, an issue that both the leaders and people have struggled with for decades.

Obama's amateurish remarks will gain him no points on the international stage.

UPDATE: Rick Richman gives a little history that perhaps Obama should reflect on:

After the Palestinians rejected an offer of a state at Camp David in 2000, rejected the Clinton Parameters in 2001, and conducted a terror war against Israeli civilians from September 2000-2002, Israel nevertheless agreed in 2003 to the “Performance-Based Roadmap” for the creation of a Palestinian state, despite reservations about the manner in which that plan would actually be implemented.

In 2003 and thereafter, Israel ceased all settlement activity — as it understood that Phase I Roadmap obligation (no new settlements; no building outside settlement boundaries; no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements) — and believed American officials agreed with its interpretation of that obligation.

In 2004, after the Palestinian Authority failed to meet its own Phase I Roadmap obligation (sustained efforts to dismantle terrorist groups and infrastructure), Israel nevertheless proposed to dismantle every existing settlement in Gaza (not just “outposts”), remove every Israeli soldier, and turn over the entire area to the Palestinian Authority — in exchange for a written American commitment to defensible borders and retention of the major settlement blocs necessary to insure them.

In 2005, after receiving the American commitment, Israel proceeded to carry out the Gaza disengagement, despite the political and social upheaval within Israel it caused, including the break-up of the ruling party and nationwide demonstrations, and - at State Department insistence - further dismantled four settlements (not just “outposts”) in the West Bank as well, to demonstrate the disengagement would be “Gaza First,” not “Gaza Last.”

In 2006, after the Palestinians elected their premier terrorist group to control their government, Israelis nevertheless re-elected Kadima on a platform of “convergence” (the new name for withdrawal from the West Bank), and would have carried it out but for the attacks by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah from Lebanon that caused two wars and finally convinced Israelis further withdrawals were insane.

In 2007, despite the Palestinian failure to carry out its Phase I dismantlement obligation, and its categorical rejection of Phase II (a state with provisional sovereignty before Phase III final status negotiations), Israel agreed to proceed immediately to final status negotiations once again under the “Annapolis Process.”

Throughout 2008, Israel negotiated with its “peace partner” under the accelerated process, and offered 100 percent of the West Bank (after land swaps) for a state, with concessions on other major issues, all of which were rejected.

During this eight-year period, the Palestinian concessions (aka reciprocal “progress”) can be enumerated more briefly: zero.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Just What Would A Palestinian State Under Abbas Be Like?

What a difference 6 years can make!
In 2003, ZOA sponsored a poll by John McLaughlin and Associates and here is what they found:

• 71% of Americans believe that the Palestinian Arabs “should not be given a state”
  
• 77% of Americans say that “the United States should stop giving the Palestinian Arabs $150-million” in aid each year.
  
• 61% of Americans believe that “the goal of Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority is the eventual destruction of Israel.”
  
• 51% of Americans believe that a Palestinian Arab state will be a terrorist state;
  
• 73% of Americans want the U.S. government to demand that the Palestinian Authority “turn over all Palestinian Arabs accused of killing or injuring American citizens.”
  
• 64% believe that world leaders should refuse to meet with Arafat’s number two man, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), since he has claimed that the Nazis did not murder six million Jews—just as world leaders have refused to meet with others who have denied or distorted the Holocaust.

That was then. And now:

• The US joins the rest of the world in pushing for a second Palestinian state
  
• Since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $2.2 billion in U.S. economic assistance via USAID projects - more than from any other donor country.
  
• Abbas--and the PA along with him--are now moderates
  
• A Palestinian state is now supposed to be the key to peace
  
• No one talks about John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Martin Linde anymore.
  
• Abbas is the peace partner that Israel must deal with and periodically bolster with concessions

Let's talk about Mahmoud Abbas, whom Condoleeza Rice once considered a weak and ineffective leader, and is now supposed to be the leader of the proposed Palestinian state. Let's not forget that before being humiliated and driven out of Gaza, Abbas was the man in charge in Gaza--and yet could not do a thing about the Kassam rockets that were being fired regularly at Israel, not only by Hamas, but by members of Abbas's Fatah as well. Let's take a look at some articles that covered Abbas's accomplishments:

• January 3, 2005: "Abbas tells militants to stop attacks: He says the rockets provoke Israel and are useless"
  
  
• May 3, 2005: Palestinian police released a member of a Hamas rocket squad despite a pledge by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to get tough with those violating a truce with Israel."
  
  
• May 30, 2005: "Abbas - who has faced down a gauntlet of Israeli criticism for not using force to crush militants - said the time had come for Hamas to renounce violence and enter into dialogue with his ruling Fatah party."
  
  
• July 18, 2005: "Abbas pledges end to Gaza attacks Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas says he will "do his utmost" to stop Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Jewish communities."
  
  
• August 19, 2005: Charles Krauthammer: "Mahmoud Abbas has nothing to offer and has offered nothing"
  
  
• July 7, 2006: "Abbas's repeated calls for militants to stop firing their crudely made projectiles into Israel since his election in 2005 have largely gone unheeded."
  
  
• August 21, 2006: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was forced earlier this week to call off plans to deploy PA security personnel in the northern Gaza Strip when several armed groups, including militias from his own Fatah movement, threatened to attack these forces, PA officials here told The Jerusalem Post on Monday. [emphasis added]
  
  
• December 6, 2006: "In the five months before the truce took effect a week ago, Gaza fighters fired daily barrages of rockets at Israeli towns and villages..." [emphasis added]
  
  
• April 7, 2007: "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on Saturday for his security forces to step up efforts to prevent rockets from being fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip."
  
  
• June 14, 2007: "Witnesses say Hamas forces have taken over Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' compound in Gaza City. Abbas wasn't there at the time."
  
  
• November 4, 2007: Even after Abbas flees to the West Bank, the rockets continue out of Gaza,--"The military wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement claimed responsibility on Sunday for launching six home-made rockets into southern Israel."[emphasis added]

This is leader of a new Palestinian state that is going to live peacefully side by side with Israel--with Israel's security assured? Just imagine what a new Palestinian state under Abbas would be like.

Of course, this merely shows that Abbas is a weak and incompetent leader, it does not address his being a 'moderate'. But the fact is that while there is discussion about opening talks with Hamas once it fulfills the 3 preconditions: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements--Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have arguably done none of these either.

Joel Mowbray pointed out in March 2008 that Abbas said that there is no need to recognize Israel--except to receive money:

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.

In the same article, Mowbray writes that Abbas has not eschewed terrorism either:

Appearing much less careful than when speaking in English, Mr. Abbas last week told the Arabic-language Al-Dastur, I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965, the year his organization, Fatah, initiated terrorism against Israel. (Transcript provided by PMW.) The renowned moderate Palestinian leader then explained his pride in having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world ... including Hezbollah, who were trained in [PLO] camps.

In fact, instead of renouncing violence--Abbas and the PA have been encouraging it. In an article in the Jerusalem Post, Itamar Marcus of Palestine Media Watch wrote about how terrorists are still honored in the West Bank:

• A computer center was named "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi." In 1978, she hijacked a bus and killed 37 civilians--including 12 children andAmerican photographer Gail Rubin. The funding came from Abbas's office
  
  
• Mughrabi is apparently a favorite terrorist to honor. Last summer the PA sponsored "the Dalal Mughrabi football championship" for kids as well as a "summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr."
  
  
• The PA also held a party honoring exceptional students, also named "for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," under the auspices of Abbas. At the party, a representative for Abbas "reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi]
  
  
• On the 31st anniversary of Mughrabi's terrorist attack, the PA broadcast a special program in celebration of the attack and refered to the killing of 37 civilians as "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi"

Marcus notes that that in addition to honoring Mughrabi as a hero, "the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money."

Finally, Abbas himself has not followed agreements with Israel, as per the Roadmap which requires the PA to "issue unequivocal statement affirming Israel’s right to exist in peace and security." Abbas's convoluted definition of what recognizing Israel means, let alone his comments about Israel not being a Jewish state fail to fulfill that most basic requirement--not to mention his refusal to disarm terrorist groups, stop attacks against Israel, and use force to confront terrorism.

Just what kind of Palestinian state is Obama--and the rest of the world--trying to create? The history of Abbas's incompetence as a leader combined with his refusal to negotiate with Israel in the interests of peace, should convince any impartial observer that at the very least the leadership and infrastructure of a state needs to be established before any thought can be given to pushing ahead with a two state solution. The fact that those who insist on pushing for a Palestinian state do not take note of the warning signs indicate that Israel's current 'peace partner' is not the only one who is being dishonest.

Being kicked out of Gaza was the best thing that ever happened to Abbas, allowing for the continuation of the myth that a two state solution is feasible.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Gaza and West Bank and Palestinian State.

Dr. Doom And The Economy

There is nothing comic book about the economy.

The "New Normal" and Us

by Jonathan Rosenblum
Yated Ne'eman
July 10, 2009

The "New Normal" Economy and Us

Let me make a few things clear at the outset. First, Yated Ne'eman is not seeking to replace the Wall Street Journal as a source of economic news. Second, I am not an economist nor the son of an economist. Indeed I know next to nothing about the dismal science. (My other qualifications for the presidency are available upon request.)

Not that it would make much difference if I were an economist. One of the most astounding things about current worldwide recession is how few of the world's most distinguished economists saw it coming. Robert Samuelson offers two reasons for the profession's failure in this regard: a general downplaying of the importance of financial markets and low interest in economic history, as opposed to beautiful mathematical models. Many economists had succumbed prior to the crash to the illusion that they now possessed all the tools necessary to ensure that there would never be another major economic downturn.

One of the few economists, who did get it right was Nouriel Roubini.

Roubini was born into an Orthodox Iranian Jewish family and has held a number of senior economic positions in the United States government. He is currently a professor of economics at New York University. From 2005 on, Roubini mapped out with startling accuracy the coming crash. His increasingly dire warnings that the U.S. housing bubble would soon burst and drag the American economy down with it earned him the sobriquet "Dr. Doom" from the New York Times.

Fortunately, Roubini is no longer predicting the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately, he is considerably less optimistic about the short-term recovery of the American economy than many other prognosticators. While the latter see the United States emerging from the current recession towards the end of this year, Roubini forecasts continued negative growth through 2009 and only very feeble growth through 2010. Even after growth resumes, unemployment will continue to rise for some time, at least if the patterns of previous business cycles holds. Thus only in 2011 will unemployment peak.

Roubini also predicts that the recent Wall Street rally will fall into the pattern of bear market rallies, and be followed by another precipitous drop. An old Wall Street saw goes, "A bear market does not end until all the hogs have been slaughtered."

More important, than the timing of the recovery, however, is Roubini's emphasis on the need for a new structure for the American economy. "We've had a model of growth based on over-consumption and lack of savings. And now that model has broken down because we have borrowed too much," he writes. That reliance on easy credit, based in large part on skyrocketing housing prices, fueled the go-go years. As Roubini puts it, "Too much of our human capital was involved in financing the most unproductive form of capital, meaning housing." He foresees another 45% drop in home prices.

Another factor that allowed the United States to go on borrowing and living beyond its means was the world's faith in the dollar, and the vast investment of foreign reserves in United States bonds and Treasure notes. That confidence is ever diminishing as the United States' deficit grows by leaps and bounds to unprecedented heights. The threat of runaway inflation down the road, if all that monetized debt is not successfully soaked up by the Federal Reserve when the recovery commences, makes foreign investors wary of locking themselves into U.S. Treasury notes. Higher corporate tax rates to finance the immense deficit, and the corresponding decline in corporate profits, will also make the United States stock market far less attractive to foreign investors. Inflation triggered by previously unfathomable deficits causes interest rates to rise, which leads in turn to weaker consumption and slower growth rates than we have become accustomed to in recent decades.

Roubini's forecast of an economy considerably different than that most of us have known for the past quarter century was shared by the author of another economic newsletter I recently received from an extremely savvy investor. That newsletter emphasized psychological factors and common sense over mathematical modeling.

Since early 2007, American consumers have suffered a $15 trillion dollar loss in net worth. The impact of that blow has resulted in a massive change in attitudes to spending and saving. In recent decades, American consumers saved little and borrowed much. That borrowing was covered by ever appreciating home value. Now we are witnessing a dramatic reversal of attitudes towards saving. Savings rates are rising rapidly and consumption is down. Government tax rebates meant to stimulate the economy were largely hoarded by taxpayers fearful about the future.

Higher savings rate and reduced consumption, the newsletter predicts will lead to a "new normal" of lower growth rates – the author predicts around 2%, as opposed to the 3.5% prior to the crash. Slower growth means smaller profit margins and lower returns on assets. In particular, risk assets – stocks, high-yield bonds, and commercial and residential real estate – will be far less attractive and riskier.

THE FOREGOING, OF COURSE, is pure speculation, and moreover speculation being quoted by one who has no independent expertise with which to evaluate the information. But if the "new normal" foreseen by Roubini and the newsletter does materialize, it will have immense consequences for the Torah community – not all of them negative. For years many in our community have been living lives of conspicuous consumption well beyond their means. To the extent that the reduction in easy credit forces retrenchment and living within one's means, it can only be beneficial from a ruchnios point of view.

Other consequences, however, will be much harder to deal with. The vast network of educational and chesed organizations created in the last 20-25 years, in both the United States and Israel, has been largely supported by those who have acquired vast wealth in relatively short spans of time. Real estate and stocks were two of the biggest sources of that wealth, and they are precisely the areas predicted to be most sharply reduced in the "new normal." Many individuals will continue to acquire great wealth in these areas, but their numbers will dwindle, and the size of those fortunes are likely to be smaller and the period needed to obtain them greater.

These areas, particularly real estate, also happen to be ones in which guts and the ability to win the confidence of lenders are far more important than a formal education. As a Satmar Chassid once told me, "Education is fine for earning a living, but irrelevant if you want to make serious money." But as the numbers of those making serious money declines, those merely making a living will have to bear a larger responsibility for communal institutions, including those in which their own children learn. Those seeking jobs in which to earn a living will find themselves entering a job market in which there are fewer jobs and thus every more intense competition for each available job. Resumes, including education, will be ever more crucial in many sectors of that job market.

If we are worthy, Hashem has the means to take care of all our needs, communal and private. Who could have predicted how so many post-war immigrants who arrived in America with nothing to their names and lacking any command of English would make fortunes manufacturing items about which they knew nothing – e.g., costume jewelry, men's sportwear – for people about whom they knew little? Or that their children would earn even greater fortunes in real estate? Yet it happened. And it will happen in new unexpected ways if Hashem wills.

But at the same time, it behooves us as a community to begin thinking seriously about some of the implications of the new economy that may emerge from the current crash and to begin planning for an uncertain future.

Technorati Tag: Nouriel Roubini and The Economy and Wall Street.

Swearing Is Healthy, Darn It

Years ago I shared a dorm room with a Seventh Day Adventist. Among the things we talked about were swearing. My roommate suggested that the ideal swear word was "Fie!" which would not be problematic. In response, I argued that a basic qualification for a swear word was that it had to end with a hard consonant.

(What can I say? We were bored)

Now comes research which offers the kind of scientific insights you can use:

That muttered curse word that reflexively comes out when you stub your toe could actually make it easier to bear the throbbing pain, a new study suggests.

Swearing is a common response to pain, but no previous research has connected the uttering of an expletive to the actual physical experience of pain.

"Swearing has been around for centuries and is an almost universal human linguistic phenomenon," said Richard Stephens of Keele University in England and one of the authors of the new study. "It taps into emotional brain centers and appears to arise in the right brain, whereas most language production occurs in the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain."

Read the whole thing.

Volunteers were asked to put their hand in a tub of ice water--first while repeating any swear word they wanted--then using a word they would use to describe a table. Apparently swearing sets off the 'fight or flight' response and increases aggression and accelerates the heart rate, "which downplays weakness to appear stronger or more macho."

First of all, the report seems to blur the line between saying that swearing is a conscious or an unconscious phenomenon--is it a conscious effort to appear macho and hide the fact that the pain really hurts, or does the swearing unconsciously allow the body to reduce the pain?

Secondly, this research doesn't do much for explaining the more common incidence of swearing in public during normal conversation.

The researchers claim:

"Our research shows one potential reason why swearing developed and why it persists," Stephens said.

But isn't it just as likely that we just lose control?
--like when we see the Mets lose?

Technorati Tag: Swearing.

Video: Fatah: “Our Goal Is Not Peace, But Rather Palestine” (Updated)

Not that for a moment this will change anyone's mind about the two state solution, but once again, we see that Fatah is no different than Hamas--except that they make it easier for apologists for Palestinian Arabs to label them 'moderates'. Here comes one Fatah moderate now:

Kifah Radaydeh, the deputy head of the Jerusalem chapter of Fatah, says openly that the PA will resume violence and terror against Israel when Fatah is "capable," and "according to what seems right."

"It has been said that we are negotiating for peace,” she further stated, “but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine."

Radaydeh is considered a “promising and rising young force” in Fatah, according to a PMW source, “and this report will likely give her extra prominence. But we have to publicize her words in order that the truth about the PA and Fatah be known.”

Read the whole thing.

Of course, this is no different than what Abbas has been saying. Here are quotes from an interview he gave last year.

The Arab Situation
"Now we are against armed conflict because we are unable. In the future stages, things may be different..."

We reject the Jewishness of the state
The Palestinian President emphasized his rejection of what is described as the Jewishness of the state [Israel], and said: "We rejected this proposal at the Annapolis conference last November in the USA, and the conference was almost aborted because of it..."

The Resistance [Editor's note: PA euphemism for terror]
The Palestinian President spoke about the resistance, saying: "I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."

Recognition of Israel
"I don't demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. I only demanded of the [Palestinian] national unity government that would work opposite Israel in recognition of it. And this I told to Syrian President Bashir Assad, and he supported this idea."

Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008

Radaydeh and Abbas agree that 'negotiations' are merely a tool to be used when terrorism is ineffective. Based on Abbas's definition of 'recognition' of Israel and his lack of negotiating quid pro quo--it is clear that for the PA negotiations have nothing to do with concessions, unless Israel is the one doing the conceding.

True negotiations is not something the Arab world has done a lot of vis-a-vis the Western world. It's about time they got some practice.

UPDATE: IMRA has the transcript:

"Fatah is facing a challenge, because [Fatah] says that we perceive peace as one of the strategies, but we say that all forms of the struggle exist, and we do not rule out the possibility of the armed struggle or any other struggle. The struggle exists in all its forms, on the basis of what we are capable of at a given time, and according to what seems right...
What exactly do we want? It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; and the goal is Palestine. I do not negotiate in order to achieve peace. I negotiate for Palestine, in order to achieve a state."

And adds further examples of Israel's peace partners in the PA:

1. The Fatah flag still shows the map of Israel under rifles. The same
symbol (see right) appears on the Fatah website ( http://www.fateh.ps ) and
other official Fatah publications.

2. Fatah MP Najat Abu-Bakr said in a PA TV interview last year that Fatah's
goal remains the destruction of Israel, but that their political plan is to
focus on the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

"It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [all of Israel]...but
our current political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders." [PA TV, Aug. 25 2008]. Click to view www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw-JZ5u0Oi4

3. A PA TV educational documentary broadcast monthly since 2007 includes the
following words denying the existence of Israel:

"Another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads
along the [Mediterranean] sea, from... Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa,
in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa]
enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the 'occupation' [Israel] in 1948. To its north, we find Acre. East of
Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias,
near a famous lake, the lake of Tiberias [Kinneret- Sea of Galilee]. Jaffa,
an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine's gateway to
the world." [PA TV, August 2007-June 7, 2009, dozens of times] Click to view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMw755MDJ5k

4. Muhammad Dahlan, senior PA official, recently stressed that Fatah
adamantly refuses to recognize Israel, and that even Palestinian Authority
recognition is to have better standing internationally in order to receive
foreign aid:

"I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today... It's required of the government but not of Hamas; it's required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families... This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community." Click to view www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WA1XI-HIY
[PA TV March 17, 2009]

Apparently, moderation is in the eye of the appeaser.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Kifah Radaydeh and Abbas.

My 19-Month Old's First Attempt At Piano

Not exactly chopsticks, but you can hum to it (sort of).
He does use most of the keys AND has a soft touch when he needs to.
Still--drums would be cheaper.


Not bad.
I wonder what the little maestro is thinking...?

Technorati Tag: My Son and Piano.

Keeping Score On Terrorists Released By Obama

From an Andy McCarthy post at The Corner:

• Binyam Mohammed: jihadist plotting mass-murders against American cities — released outright.
  
  
• Laith Qazali: abduction/murder of 5 U.S. soldiers in Karbala — released outright.
  
  
• Irbil 5: Iranian IRGC operatives (i.e., the same guys who murdered 19 of our air force at Khobar Towers in '96) coordinating Iraqi terrorist operations that have killed HUNDREDS of U.S. forces in Iraq since 2003 — released outright.
  
  
• New Black Panther Party operatives on videotape intimidating anti-Obama voters — charges dropped after DOJ had already won the case.
  
  
• CIA Interrogators who obtained information that saved countless American lives — under investigation.
  
  
• Bush officials who deliberated over national-security policies that prevented another 9/11 (many of which the Holder/Obama DOJ have defended in court and, however inadvertently, in Congress) — under investigation.

After getting a sense of Obama's priorities--not only in terms of those who threaten US security as opposed to those who defend it, but also in terms of those countries he coddles as opposed to those he condemns--it may be appropriate to bring up a question that has not been asked yet during the Obama administration:

Do you feel safer now?

Having asked the question, I just did a quick search and found this:

At this point, this is more than a mere political issue.

Technorati Tag: Obama and National Security.

The Last Example Of Great Jewish American Leadership Shows How Much Trouble We Are In

Jennifer Rubin has an interesting post in response to the upcoming meeting Obama will have on Monday with Jewish leaders.

She suggests that now is the time for real Jewish leadership to show itself, and even goes so far as to provide an example: Peter Bergson. She retells Bergson's relatively unknown success in saving Jews from the Nazi Holocaust, prodding the US in general and FDR in particular in a way no other American Jewish group did.

The result:

Although the War Refugee Board suffered from inadequate funding and lack of cooperation from other government agencies, it probably saved about 200,000 lives. Scholars the “Bergson Boys” deserve some credit for that. They had arrived in the U.S just a few years earlier without a network of followers or any financial support. Within months of hearing about the Nazis’ plan to destroy European Jewry, they had created a mass movement — the Emergency Committee itself would ultimately boast more than 125,000 active members and supporters. The Bergsonites enjoyed greater success than most American Jewish activists because they were unfettered by allegiances to existing political organizations. And, unlike American Jewish leaders who were at times hesitant to be too vocal for fear of exacerbating anti-Semitism, they had no qualms about whom in America they offended. Ultimately, Bergson and his followers were driven by one belief: the need to act with all haste to save the remaining Jews in Europe. They never questioned their right to agitate within the U.S. for government action. When others asked with what authority they did so, they would reply we have “the mandate of conscience.”

Read the whole thing.

With Obama as president, agitation seems the last thing on the minds of American Jews--a fact Obama knows.

The example, though, may be an even better example of the problem--Peter Bergson was the pseudonmy of Hillel Kook, the Lithuanian-born nephew of Rav Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of British Mandate Palestine.

If the best example of American Jewish leadership is a non-American Jew, we may be in big trouble.

Technorati Tag: Peter Bergson and Obama and American Jewry.

One Jerusalem--End of Week Review: July 19, 2009

From an email:

End of Week Review: July 12, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● Did Netanyahu Go Over The Line?: This week, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. While it was a closed meeting there are reports that the two men did not see eye to eye. Supposedly Steinmeier, like Obama and other European... (read more)

● Is Israel The Answer to Obama's Downward Spiral?: For a President with an ambitious domestic agenda, President Obama certainly spends a lot of high-profile time overseas. One reason for this may be the strong inclination among politicians to attempt to deflect criticism at home by diverting attention overseas.... (read more)

● Temple Quarry Found : The Associated Press is reporting the discovery of the ancient quarry used to supply material for the construction of the Second Temple.The 2,300 year old quarry provided the massive walls of the Temple. Dr. Ofir Safir the director of the... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Mike Wallace Interviews Abba Eban (April 1958) [Updated]

I received an email from Ted Belman of Israpundit about this video. It can be viewed at the website of The University of Texas. I found another copy on Yahoo Video (I didn't even know they had one.)

Here is some of what Ted wrote about the interview:

I can't recommend enough, this 1958 one hour interview of Abba Eban by Mike Wallace.

Once you get by the cigarette commercial, which is a real blast from yesteryear, you will see in the interview, an antisemitic interviewer intent on repeating on national television, in the most watched show in the US, every charge against Israel that the most scurrilous people make, and the brilliant responses from the incomparable Abba Eban, Israel's Ambassador to the UN.

Eban's responses were deftly and will delicately stated. They succeeded in turning all the horrific charges Wallace made into Israel's favour, with dignity and irony, and in so doing showed Wallace up for the antisemite he was.

Here is the interview (it starts out fuzzy, but clears up):

UPDATE: Israel Matzav found the transcript for the interview--you can view it here.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abba Eban and Mike Wallace.

Obama: No Compromise With Israel--But We'll Work Things Through With Russia And Georgia (Updated)

The US has made clear that there is no compromise in the offing on the issue of the Israeli settlements. Obama's demand for a settlement freeze stands. This, in spite of the fact that there are agreements between Israel and the US in regards to the settlements--agreements that the US has denied by have not addressed head on, in spite of the fact that settlements are arguably not the primary issue in the peace process, in spite of the fact that some of the land under discussion will go to Israel anyway, and in spite of the fact that this is not sovereign Palestinian land (since there has never been a sovereign Palestinian Arab state to begin with).

Yet, when it comes to Russia and its invasion of the sovereign state of Georgia, the kid gloves come on.

Of course, no one is going to confuse Russia with Israel.

Obviously Obama has to be more cautious and diplomatic when speaking to and about Russia. After all, even if Russia is no longer a major superpower, it has proven that it has advanced weaponry that it is more than happy to share with countries in the Middle East, adding to the instability of the area. Also, Russia has plentiful oil reserves that give it an added bargaining chip--and potential threat.

So it is not unexpected that Obama was very cautious when addressing Russia's invasion and occupation of the sovereign state of Georgia:

I won't pretend that the United States and Russia agree on every issue. As President Medvedev indicated, we've had some frank discussions, and there are areas where we still disagree. For instance, we had a frank discussion on Russia -- on Georgia, and I reiterated my firm belief that Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Yet even as we work through our disagreements on Georgia's borders, we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict. And going forward, we must speak candidly to resolve these differences peacefully and constructively.

Yet, if you compare Obama's pacifying words with the reality of what is actually going on, Obama's words about Georgia ignore the reality and are not especially reassuring--especially not to the Georgians. Cathy Young writes in the Wall Street Journal that:

the Russian media are now abuzz with speculation about a new war in Georgia, and some Western analysts are voicing similar concerns. The idea seems insane. Nonetheless, the risk is real.

One danger sign is persistent talk of so-called Georgian aggression against the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russia recognized as independent states after the war last August. "Georgia is rattling its weapons . . . and has not given up on attempts to solve its territorial problems by any means," Gen. Nikolai Makarov, who commanded Russian troops in Georgia in 2008, told the Novosti news agency on June 17. Similar warnings have been aired repeatedly by the state-controlled media.

Independent Russian commentators, such as columnist Andrei Piontkovsky, note that this has the feel of a propaganda campaign to prepare the public for a second war. Most recently, Moscow has trotted out a Georgian defector, Lt. Alik D. Bzhania, who claims that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "intends to restart the war."

Yet Russia is the one currently engaged in large-scale military exercises in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and adjacent regions.

In fact, Russia has even gone so far as to make Obama's statement above about Georgia more 'nuanced'. Here is the same quote as above, with the words removed in the Russian translation in bold:

[W]e had a frank discussion on Russia — on Georgia, and I reiterated my firm belief that Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Yet even as we work through our disagreements on Georgia’s borders, we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict. And going forward, we must speak candidly to resolve these differences peacefully and constructively.

Obama's words are reduced from being diplomatic to being just plain vanilla--but the change from "we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict," which implies a common understanding to "no one has an interest in renewed military conflict" which implies an opinion shared by Obama alone--should set off some red flags.

This goes to prove once again that these days it just does not pay to be a friend and ally of the US--but being an enemy has plenty of perks.

Just ask Russia (and the Georgians) and Iran (and the protesters) and Chavez (and Honduras) and the Arabs (and Israel).

It's a big bus.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin puts my last point better:

It is easy I suppose to “get along” with others when you simply relent on every issue of consequence. Indeed, America can please many nations by letting them run amok, acquire nuclear weapons, threaten their neighbors, oppress dissidents, and engage in other objectionable behaviors. It remains an open question whether the president lacks the understanding to recognize such behavior as objectionable (i.e. if one is a moral relativist, such issues are only differences of opinion) or the will to exert American influence, or the nerve to stand up to criticism, which inevitably follows when America opposes tyrants, bullies, and rogue states.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Russia and Georgia.

Iran: "The Uprising Is Not Over" (Updated)

No one knows for sure how things are going to end up in Iran. One thing we now know for sure is that despite the massive crackdown on the protests and the numbers of protesters arrested (and worse), the protests are not over.

Michael Ledeen had coverage of Thursday's protests on his blog. At the end of today's post he writes:

4 o’clock: there are still clashes in Tehran, and probably other cities as well. It’s too early for an overall assessment of the “meaning” of the day, but some things are clear enough:

1. The uprising is not over. If anything, today’s turnout, discipline, and obviously improved tactics suggest that the opposition is stronger;

2. The regime hasn’t won any converts to its side. Rafsanjani’s daughter was reportedly in the crowd today, and I am still waiting for confirmation of the widely reported story that Mousavi appeared at a mosque and delivered a speech;

3. The opposition seems to have gained a tempo in this game. I’d expect the strikes to continue, and to intensify. I wonder if any American trade union is going to support its Iranian brothers and sisters;

4. Meanwhile, we’ve learned to accept a simple truth about Khamenei. You gotta read it!

4:30 PM (last reliable information I’m going to have today, I think). Khamenei was told the following:

* massive demonstrations
* 3 killed
* 78 known as seriously wounded, many broken bones and ruptured internal organs, several may not make it; other wounded may have disappeared
* 600 arrests

SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM OPPOSITION: “please tell the world about these atrocities; people did nothing, silence, no provocations, no violence but fierce attacks by the government forces.”

Read the whole thing.

here


UPDATE: Revolutionary Road has pictures of Thursday's protests both here (with liveblogging of the protests) and here.



He also posted a number of videos in both posts.



Check it out.

Also check out the LA Times Blog, Babylon & Beyond, which also has video coverage of Thursday's protests here and here.

The New York Times Blog, The Lede, also liveblogged Thursday's protests and includes pictures and videos. Robert Mackey notes:

While Thursday’s opposition protests were not as large as those held in the first week after the election, they were dramatic, coming on the tenth anniversary of student protests in 1999, and following threats from the security forces.

Today’s events may also have been the most well-documented by Iranian video bloggers, who uploaded a relatively large number of clips very quickly.

The ability to continue to provide documentation to the outside world will obviously be crucial.

Technorati Tag: Iran Election and Iran Protests.

Obama vs. Ahamadinejad: Can You Judge A Leader By How He Swats A Fly?

Few people can actually look good while in the process of dealing with a fly. Ahmadinejad is not one of them:



On the other hand, Obama shows Ahamdejah how it's done.



But then again, who is the one who is making concessions in order to open talks?

If only Obama would give as much thought to public policy.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Ahmadinejad.

Obama Continues to Release Terrorists

George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists...
Barack Obama

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

Andy McCarthy writes:

On May 31, 2007, 5 British civilians were kidnapped by a terrorist group in Baghdad. Then-President Bush refused to release terrorists in return for the release of the hostages. But Obama agreed to the terrorist demands, and even then not for the first time:

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.

The terrorists ended up changing their minds and releasing only 2 hostages--their corpses, since they had already died weeks earlier.

Now we find out that Obama has arranged for the release of 5 Iranians who have been held since 2007 after having been identified as members of Al Quds and assisting in the killing of American soldiers:

Five Iranian officials held by the US military in Iraq since January 2007 have been freed, according to Iranian state media.

Tehran’s ambassador to Baghdad was quoted as saying US forces had handed the five, whom he said were diplomats, to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Hassan Kazemi-Qomi said they would soon be taken to the Iranian embassy.

US forces seized the five in the Kurdish city of Irbil on suspicion of arming and funding Shia militias.

Ed Morrissey on the reason for the release:

The Obama administration wants talks with the Iranian mullahs so badly that he’s not only willing to meet with them unconditionally, he’s now fulfilling their conditions to get direct talks. The Iranians had made this an issue every time the subject of direct talks arose.

Morrissey goes on to question whether there was even a quid pro quo or whether the US just gave in to Iran's demands without getting anything in return.

Can we expect Obama to impose this same kind of thinking on others? If he can demand that Israel freeze settlements, will he feel free to demand that Israel also release terrorists in the interests of 'talks'? If, indeed, the US is receiving nothing in return for the release of the 5 terrorists, will Obama feel free to demand Israel release terrorists even without anything in return?

Of course, Israel has made these kinds of concessions on its own--most recently in the case of Samir Kuntar--but it is one thing for a country to agonize over such a decision and make it on their own. It is another to have another country to dictate the need for such an act.

Even assuming that Obama would not go that far, the lengths he is willing to go to be granted the privilege of talking with Iran do not bode well for what will be required of Israel when negotiations start in earnest.

At the same time, Obama should be careful: just as his economic policies are taking a toll on his approval rating in the US, his foreign policy, with its continued appeasement of terrorists and dictators, will catch up with his standing internationally as well.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Terrorists and Iran.

Daf Yomi: Shiur Sikum for Perek Eizehu Neshech in Maseches Bava Metziah

From an email:

TONIGHT

The Daf Yomi Commission of Agudath Israel of America in conjunction with Irgun Shiurai Torah are pleased to announced the following

Shiur Sikum for Perek Eizehu Neshech in Maseches Bava Metziah
Title:Hilchos Ribis Is For Everyone
Practical Applications for the Home and Office

Given By:

HaRav Yisroel Reisman, Shlita
Rav,Agudath Israel Zichron Chaim Zvi,Madison,
Rosh Yeshiva,Yeshiva TorahVodaas

Wednesday July 8th 2009-Ohr L'17th Tamuz 5769
At 9:00 PM

Bostoner Beis Medrash
2822 Avenue J
Brooklyn NY 11210

NOW IS THE TIME TO JOIN the thousands around the world who are Kove'ah Itim L'Torah through the Daf Yomi program!

This shiur will also be available LIVE VIA TELEPHONE
DAF YOMI HELPLINE 212-444-1DAF

A Project of the Daf Yomi Commission of Agudath Israel of America
Dedicated by: Mr. & Mrs. Elly & Brochie Kleinman

לעילוי נשמות ר' אברהם אייזיק ב"ר אלכסנדר קליינמאן ז"ל,

Technorati Tag: Torah.

US-Israel Agreement On Settlements Would Be Wakeup Call To Palestinians (2 Updates)

If reports of the details of the agreement are accurate, then the Palestinian Arabs will find that a second Palestinian state is not going to be handed to them on a silver platter:

Israel and the United States have reached a deal allowing the Jewish state to build about 2,500 housing units already under construction in West Bank settlements, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The agreement was secured during a meeting between Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak and US Middle East envoy George Mitchell on Monday, said the Maariv newspaper, quoting unnamed sources [Hebrew link].

Under the arrangement, Israel would be allowed to continue work on about 700 buildings already under construction on the occupied Palestinian territory, or about 2,500 units.

If confirmed, the deal would go counter to repeated demands by the administration of US President Barack Obama for Israel to stop all activity in the settlements, which the international community considers illegal and which are one of the major obstacles in the hobbled Middle East peace process.

This is not just an issue of the Palestinians not being able to just sit back and let the US do all of the work for them. There is also the issue of Obama's image in the eyes of the Arab world in general and the Palestinian Arabs in particular. The Palestinians seem to view things as black and white. If they see this as a real concession by Obama to Israel, then the credibility he is trying to build with the Arab world will be diminished.

But not only is the US not going to do all of the work--the Palestinians and the Arab world are going to be required to actually negotiate:

Barak and Mitchell reportedly agreed that a halt to settlement construction would come only within the framework of regional peace negotiations that would also involve Syria and Lebanon.

"In other words, the Americans have adopted the position that Israel should not be required to halt settlement construction as a precondition, but rather only when the peace process with the Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority gets on track," the Maariv said.

...Among steps required for a peace deal, they listed Palestinian action on security, moves by Arab states towards normalisation of ties with Israel and Israeli measures on settlements and on access and movement in the West Bank.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said that the actual details have not actually been arrived at. It remains to be seen if what has been reported is accurate and if the US will be willing to apply the same kind of pressure on the Arabs as it has on Israel.

That would explain the article in YnetNews.com:

Minister: Barak-Mitchell talks 'huge flop'

Defense minister briefs senior cabinet members on London meeting with Obama's Mideast envoy; one of them quoted as saying Barak 'offered dismantling of illegal West Bank outposts in exchange for nothing'

"(Defense Minister Ehud) Barak returned with nothing from his talks with (special US Mideast envoy) George Mitchell; it appears that he offered the dismantling of illegal West Bank outposts in exchange for nothing," a senior minister said Tuesday.

The minister, who asked to remain nameless, was also quoted by his associates as saying, "The inclusion of Syria and Lebanon in the statement on a comprehensive peace agreement that followed the (Barak-Mitchell) meeting is a huge flop."

UPDATE: Check out Israel Matzav on what is not mentioned as part of the freeze:

Note that there is no mention of the other open issues on the freeze: The Americans were demanding that it include Jerusalem and the freeze's length is not discussed. It is also not clear whether these 700 buildings are only in the 'settlement blocs' or also in other parts of Judea and Samaria.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE II: More negative reaction to the news:

However, “this news is far from good, and is in fact very grave,” said the Chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, Danny Dayan

"It is nothing more than a trick," he told Israel National News. “Everyone knows it’s impossible to stop construction that has already started. These buildings are not being put up by the government; they are all private construction. There is no legal way to stop private construction. I therefore suspect that Barak released this news as if it was a great achievement because he is preparing the way for a major construction freeze in the future. This is not good news at all."

And this is before any word whether news of this is accurate!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Israeli Settlements.

Obama's Honduras And Kennedy's Bay Of Pigs

Max Boot offers some historical perspective to the developments in Honduras and Obama's reaction to them:

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the first military intervention of the Obama administration were to occur in, of all places, Honduras? Unlikely, I admit, but not impossible. Young Democratic presidents with scant foreign-policy experience usually feel a need to demonstrate their willingness to use force early on. Think of JFK and the Bay of Bigs. Or, more to the point, recall Clinton and Haiti. In 1994, Cinton sent in troops to restore president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power after he had been ousted by a military coup.

Sound familiar? In Haiti our intervention didn’t work out so well. Aristide, although elected, turned out to be no democrat and not an enlightened despot either. The country continued to become poorer and more chaotic. He was ultimately ousted in another coup in 2004. This time, President Bush was wise enough to give Aristide a lift out of the country — not to force him back into power.

Let us hope Obama learns a lesson in all this about the dangers of American intervention in another nation’s internal affairs — something he is keenly aware of when it comes to Iran. But he seems much less reticent about interfering with Israel’s internal affairs or Honduras’s.

Read the whole thing.

Obama, of course, has yet to face an international crisis on the level of the Bay of Bigs--irregardless of Biden's famous warning of Obama being tested. Contrary to what Boot says, this president does not seem to be in any hurry to use military force. Of course, political and diplomatic force is another thing entirely.

Much was made during the presidential campaign about Obama playing it safe by having avoided defining himself by committing himself on key issues. On the international scene, Obama seems to be following the same plan: pressuring Israel and Honduras on issues--settlements and a 'coup'--that he could easily ignore, while holding back on the issue of the falsified Iran election and the crackdown on the resulting protests. Israel and Honduras are easy targets; Iran would be a test.

Back in April 2001, Peggy Noonan wrote about JFK, Cuba and taking the measure of a president. Referring to the Bay of Pigs, Noonan wrote:

It was, of course, a disaster, and was over in five hours. The invasion troops were outnumbered and outgunned, hit hard by Soviet MiGs flown by Czech pilots; and Castro, who knew the invasion was coming, had already arrested any Cubans who would have joined an uprising against him. More than a hundred men died and the rest surrendered.

"He chose a minimum of political risk" in planning the invasion, said his biographer, Richard Reeves, "which meant a maximum of military risk." Kennedy was urged to send in American troops when there was still a chance, but told Nixon in a telephone call that "There is a good chance that if we move on Cuba, Khrushchev will move on Berlin." A few days later when Kennedy met with Dwight Eisenhower at Camp David, Ike stood by him in public but castigated him in private, saying his thinking was exactly wrong. According to Reeves, Ike said: "The Soviets follow their own plans, and if they see us show any weakness that is when they press the hardest."

Kennedy accepted responsibility, Castro triumphed, the crisis went away. But of course it never fully went away, because all such disasters have implications. A calculating world was watching, and taking Kennedy's measure. Eisenhower was right: Three months later, in the dead of night, Khrushchev, emboldened by Kennedy's failure, put up the Berlin Wall. He gambled that Kennedy would do nothing. He was right. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Obama may think he will avoid what happened to Kennedy by avoiding the tough tests. What Obama seems to not realize is that the enemies of the US are emboldened not only by our actions and mistakes, but also by our inaction. If the US stays on the sidelines during the turmoil in Iran, there will be consequences for the US down the road--just as there will be for bullying Israel and Honduras.

There is another price for avoiding the tough tests--the same Kennedy who authorized the Bay of Pigs later went on face--and resolve--The Cuban Missile Crisis.

Technorati Tag: Obama and John F. Kennedy.

Marshall McLuhan Was Not Available, So Newsweek Covers For Obama

Good help is hard to find.

Starting off his remarks at a university graduation in Moscow, Obama said:

I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’re all going to have wonderful careers.

Mark Hemingway writes that this is just not true: Obama did not meet his wife in class at Harvard. Actually, she graduated in 1988 and he graduated in 1991. Instead of meeting in Harvard, they met later in Chicago in 1989--when he was a summer associate in a law firm there and she was his mentor.

But Newsweek comes to the rescue:

Was what Obama said wrong? Technically no, considering Obama was still going to school when he met his wife. But for those keeping close watch on Obama trivia—ie, the White House press corps—the statement did seem a wee bit off.

Hemingway responds:

Come again? The statement is just wrong. There is no "technical" justification for it having any veracity that I can tell — "in class" is quite specific. Next time you husbands embarass your wife publicly by not remembering a significant relationship detail, I bet you wish a major media organization would step in and spin it for you. Alas, you'll have no such luck. [emphasis added]

No, probably not--after all, who but Obama could live a scene out of a Woody Allen movie:

Technorati Tag: Obama and Woody Allen and Annie Hall and Marshall McLuhan.

Pushing For Freezing Israeli Settlements--In The Face Of 80 Years Of Arab Rejectionism (Updated)

Jeff Robbins, a former US Delegate to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva during the Clinton Administration, writes about the long history of the rejection of a Jewish state by Palestinian Arabs:

For over 80 years, as Morris notes [in his book, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict], Palestinians have "persuasively demonstrated" that they do not want any Jewish state in the region, regardless of the boundaries, and regardless of the settlement policy pursued by this Israeli government or that one. The Palestinian rejection of any Jewish state has not merely been the recurring theme of the conflict, but the dominant one.

Examples of the long history of Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state--even at the expense of the creation of a second Palestinian state:

• In the 1930s, the Palestinian Arabs rejected a proposed two-state solution that would have created a Jewish state in less than 20% of Palestine.
  
  
• In the 1940s, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the United Nations partition plan which would have created a Jewish state on less than half of the arable land in Palestine.
  
  
• From 1948 to 1967, Israel had no presence in Gaza, the West Bank or East Jerusalem--yet during this time, the Arabs created no Palestinian state.
  
  
• After the 1967 war, Israel accepted land-for-peace as per UN Resolution 242--but both the Arab Palestinians and the Arab world in general rejected it.
  
  
• In 2000, Israel supported President Clinton's plan to create an independent Palestinian state including Gaza and virtually all of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital--and this was also rejected by the Palestinian Arabs, whom turned to terrorist attacks, murdering 1,100 Israelis.
  
  
• In 2006, during the Disengagement, Israel forcibly removed thousands of settlers from Gaza--Palestinian Arabs responded by firing rockets at Israeli civilian centers.

Robbins writes that the current Palestinian leadership is no different:

For its part, the Hamas leadership, which had assassinated many of its opponents and achieved a military takeover of Gaza, was more than content to trade hundreds of Palestinian lives in Gaza for the international criticism of Israel which Israel's efforts to protect its civilians from these rocket attacks would reliably trigger.

Recently, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told The Washington Post that the Palestinians had once again rejected a two-state solution. Former Prime Minister Olmert, Abbas told the Post, had recently offered an independent Palestinian state comprising all of Gaza, a capital in East Jerusalem and 97 percent of the West Bank - - and Abbas had flatly rejected this as well. "The gaps," Abbas said, without elaboration, "were too wide."

In the meantime, Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, telling the Post that he preferred to let the passage of time take its course, confident that American and international pressure on Israel would further weaken Israel's position. "Until then," Abbas said, "in the West Bank we have a good reality…the people are living a good life." And just last week, despite yet more stories in the western media that Hamas was at last "moderating" its position on Israel, Hamas informed former President Carter, whose credulousness on the conflict is a source of some wonderment, that as it had previously made clear, it would never recognize Israel's right to exist under any circumstances.

Read the whole thing.

The problem is that against Arab PR, the history of region and the ideology of the Palestinian Arabs fall by the wayside.

History is forgotten--and as for ideology:

As Dennis Ross and David Makovsky write with understatement in their own new book, "Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East," "those on the left…tend to dismiss ideological opposition to Israel's existence."

--fixating instead on obvious measures such as freezing settlements.

And as Robbins concludes, the Arab world will interpret Obama's policy towards Israel as an indication that all they have to do is hold out and eventually they will get what they want. Of course, as a corollary of that, the US will prove once again it's unreliability as an ally--as Iraqis learned from President Bush 41.

UPDATE: My Right Word pointed out to me another, earlier, example of Palestinian Arabs turning down an opportunity [see Answers.com, third entry]:

"The British attempted to introduce a limited measure of self-government through establishment of advisory and legislative councils during the 1920s and 1930s. The first, set up in October 1920, was a nominated advisory council (AC) pending the establishment of a legislative body. The AC was composed of ten Palestinian officials: four Muslims, three Christians, and three Jewish members of the Yishuv.

In August 1922 the HC, Sir Herbert Louis Samuel, proposed as a first step toward self-government a constitution that called for the replacement of the AC with a legislative council (LC). The proposed LC was to be composed of twenty-three members: eleven appointed British members, including the high commissioner, and twelve elected Palestinian members, incuding eight Muslims, two Christians, and two Jews. However, in order to safeguard the Balfour policy of support for the Jewish national home, the HC would retain a veto power and the council's legislative authority would not extend to such central issues as Jewish immigration and land purchase.

The Jews reluctantly accepted, but the Palestinians rejected the proposed constitution and boycotted the elections for the LC in February 1923. Palestinian leaders argued that participation in the council would be tantamount to acceptance of the British Mandate and Balfour policy, which they feared would lead to their subjugation under a Jewish majority in an eventual state. The poor election turnout caused the HC to shelve the LC proposal and revert to the idea of an advisory council. But Samuel failed to convince Palestinian leaders to sit on a revised AC; nor was his subsequent proposal to establish an "Arab Agency" (to be parallel to the "Jewish Agency" recognized under the mandate) any more successful at winning the cooperation of local politicians. Samuel thereupon abandoned the idea of encouraging popular participation in the governing of Palestine. Although the idea of establishing a LC would be revived in 1928 and again in the early 1930s, the British were unable to win both Arab and Jewish support for their proposals. As a result, Palestine was governed, from 1923 until the end of the Mandate in 1948, by a HC in consultation with an AC composed only of British officials".

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Benny Morris.

Time For Israeli PR To Go On The Offensive

Israel has long had a PR problem, due not only to events in the area but also because of the emphasis that Israeli Hasbara has had over the years. It's time for that emphasis to change:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's communications chief, Ron Dermer, has admitted that Israel faces a serious public relations problem.

In his first interview since the Netanyahu Government took office in March, the Prime Minister's director of policy planning and communications has told The Age that it's time Israel switched its PR strategy from defence to offence.

...In pursuing a strategy that will centralise the Israeli Government's responses to issues raised by the foreign media into a kind of war room, and make better use of public opinion research, Mr Dermer says Israel has to start shaming those countries and organisations that hold Israel to a different standard.

Great idea--if those countries and organizations actually had any shame. Not that there isn't an obvious double standard going on:

"(People) who get together to call for a boycott against Israel, are they also calling for a boycott against North Korea, the world's largest concentration camp? Against Iran, where they hang homosexuals?" Mr Dermer asks. "When you hold Israel to a standard that you won't hold another country to, what are you doing? You are being anti-Semitic."

Dermer had me the entire way, until the article ends with this:

"But once the Palestinians accept that we, the Jews, are here by right, that we are not foreign colonialists and we're not invaders — even if they say it (the land) is 1 per cent yours and 99 per cent ours — then we're in real negotiations."

Read the whole thing.

You can argue that with the right kind of PR campaign you can influence world opinion in general--there was a study back in April that back up that assumption:

As part of the study, participants were asked a series of questions and were instructed to grade their level of sympathy of Israel on a 1-10 scale. Later, participants were presented with several branding videos on Israel, before being asked more questions in order to see whether their opinions changed after watching the clips.

The videos showed many aspects of life in Israel, including the beaches, landscape, culture, food, technology, and religious sites.

After watching the videos, a total of 51% of all respondents said their views on Israel changed for the better. The percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as an aggressive state subsequently dropped from 35% to 21%. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as a creative country rose from 24% to 40% after watching the clips.

But when it comes to convincing Palestinian Arabs to accept that the Jews have a right to the land, you are leaving the area of opinion--which can be influenced--and entering the area of Islamic faith, which cannot. Combine with that the indoctrination done by Hamas in camps and on children's TV shows and there is just not much that PR can do.

The fact is that the real target for Israeli PR must be world opinion, as Arab PR has made all too clear.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hasbara.

Palestinian Terrorism: Your Taxpayer Dollars At Work

Both Itamar Marcus and Caroline Glick have written about the illegality of providing aid to terrorists according to US law--with Glick demonstrating how it is a breach of international law as well. Yet nothing seems to keep the State Department from giving our tax dollars over to terrorists and those who support them. Joel Mowbray reported back in May:

Through either deliberate neglect or simple ineptitude, the State Department has made U.S. taxpayers complicit in perpetuating the single greatest impediment to Middle East peace: an increasingly radical Palestinian society that despises Israel and embraces terrorism.

Despite multiple government audits and several changes enacted in the law over the past few years, the department still cannot ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not enriching terrorists or underwriting terrorist propaganda in schools across the West Bank and Gaza. According to a critical report issued last week by the Government Accountability Office [link], the auditing arm of Congress, the State Department has fallen short overseeing aid to Palestinians through both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which administers Palestinian refugee camps.

This means in practical terms that many of the Palestinians who are consuming a steady diet of Islamist indoctrination and glorification of violence receive this brainwashing courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Among the recommendations in the GAO report are 3 for the State Department in general, meaning that these are 3 things that the State Department has not been doing till now:

• Establishing criteria to evaluate UNRWA's efforts
  
  
• Screening the names of UNRWA contractors against lists of individuals and entities of concern to the United States
  
  
• Monitoring UNRWA's commitment that future internal audits would assess UNRWA's compliance with its neutrality and anti-terrorism policies for contractors as well as internal controls for cash assistance.

On the bright side, Mowbray writes, members of Congress are working on ways to keep our money out of the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Rep. Steven R. Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced a resolution earlier this year requiring the UNRWA to put its textbooks on the Internet for public inspection and for the United States to screen the agency's payroll for terrorists. According to Rothman, the goal is that

Not one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars should go either directly or indirectly to anyone associated with Hamas or any other terrorist organization. Nor should any go to terrorist propaganda in classrooms.

Rothman is planning additional proposals for the 2010 spending bill that will increase accountability and transparency for both USAID and UNRWA.

In May, when Congress included in the supplemental appropriations bill an additional $119 million for UNRWA for the current fiscal year, the bill required the State Department to propose a plan to increase the accountability of UNRWA, set aside $1 million for auditing USAID.

Yet, with all of this the State Department continues its own agenda:

Lawmakers have dictated repeatedly and explicitly that no U.S. taxpayer funds can go to any organization that has even "advocated" terrorism - meaning no money should go to groups whose leaders have declared on Al-Jazeera or elsewhere that suicide bombers are "martyrs." This is not trivial. Figures who lionize terrorists and praise evil acts poison society and ultimately help cause more terrorism.

The State Department's bar that contractors and aid recipients must clear is much lower. Even under the most thorough vetting the department conducts, essentially only people who have actively participated in terrorism would be declared ineligible. It appears the department hasn't even bothered to think of a way to determine which people trying to receive U.S. taxpayer dollars have advocated terrorism.

Read the whole thing.

Under the circumstances, the aid that the US will provide to Gaza for reconstruction will be a bonanza for Hamas that will make it easy for it to rearm itself just as Hizbullah has.

Technorati Tag: Terrorism and State Department.

Is The Time Ripe For An Israeli-Sunni Alliance Against Iran? (Updated)

Israel has denied reports that Saudi Arabia would help it against Iran by allowing Israeli airplanes to use its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

However, that has not stopped Jeffrey Golderg of The Atlantic to write about the possibility of a Sunni-Jewish alliance against the Shiite Iran:

The conflict between Sunni and Shia is the most consequential in the Middle East because it is so profound and elemental. But precisely because it is so intractable, it might hold the key to solving another seemingly eternal Middle East conflict, the one between Muslim and Jew. The definitive Middle East cliché is, of course, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Well, it turns out that today, more than at any other time in the ruinous 100-year encounter between Arabs and Jews on the strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the two parties in the dispute have a common enemy: the Shia Persian Islamic Republic of Iran. President Obama’s skills and charisma just might bring Sunni Arabs and Israeli Jews together, but he will be helped inestimably if he considers that the road to peace runs not through Jerusalem but through Karbala. Consider the possibility of a grand, if necessarily implicit, Jewish-Sunni alliance as a gift to Obama from his predecessor.

I am not sure which particular skills Goldberg thinks Obama would bring to bear to the situation. Having applied pressure solely on Israel thus far, on an issue which is not primary to the peace process, Obama can still count on Israel's wariness of Iran as a motivating force regardless of how Israel may feel about Iran.

The issue instead is the Arab countries. Obama would face the same issue that President Bush 41 faced in assembling a coalition of Arab countries against Iraq. Bush was able to put together an impressive coalition--but had to leave Israel out, even to the extent of limiting Israel's defending itself against Iraq's retaliatory rockets.

Have times changed--and is the perceived danger--enough to allow for a Sunni-Jewish coalition?

Some thing so:

At a Pew Forum discussion on Iran and the Middle East last December, Vali Nasr, the Iran expert (and adviser to Richard Holbrooke, the State Department’s envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan), talked about the rise of Iran, and the marginalization of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nasr argued, convincingly, that most Arab states have a deeper interest in containing Iran than they do in containing Israel. “Once upon a time we used to think—and some people still do—that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to solving all the problems of the region: terrorism, al-Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq,” he said. “I think the Persian Gulf is the key to solving the Arab-Israeli issue. All the powers that matter—Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even the good news of the region: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc.—are all in the gulf. And all the conflicts that matter to us—Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran—are in the gulf and then to the east.”

Of course, Nasr is a US Iran expert, and when he talks about "all the conflicts that matter to us"--he is talking about the US perspective. What about the Arab perspective on Iran?

The remarkable thing about this moment in the Middle East is that Arab leaders speak about Iran more critically than even Netanyahu does. In March, Morocco broke diplomatic relations with Iran over what it claimed were attempts by Iranian Shia to convert Moroccan Sunnis; in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak’s intelligence services spent the spring breaking up Hezbollah cells (Hezbollah being the Lebanese Shia proxy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). “Even if we forget that Iran is trying to obtain a nuclear capability, all gulf and Arab countries are extremely unhappy with the Iranian involvement in our region,” a senior official of the United Arab Emirates recently told me. “We see this today in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Yemen. We just saw the Moroccans breaking diplomatic ties with Iran because of that. We’ve been seeing that in one way or the other in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Sudan.”

In 2006, Mubarak accused Arab Shia of being loyal to Iran. “Definitely Iran has influence on Shiites,” he said. “Shiites are 65 percent of the Iraqis. Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not to the countries they are living in.” And Yusuf Qaradawi, a leading Sunni scholar, said last year, “Shiites are Muslims, but they are heretics, and their danger comes from their attempts to invade Sunni society. They are able to do that because their billions of dollars trained cadres of Shiites proselytizing in Sunni countries.”

Goldberg suggests that this is where Israeli concessions come in--that regardless of the danger the Arab world may see in Iran and the fear and hate Sunnis may have for Iran, the Arab countries require Israeli concessions--such as freezing the settlements--in order to demonstrate to pro-Palestinian elements that they are the true defenders of Palestinian Arab interests and not Iran.

On the other hand, mitigating against such an alliance, writes Goldberg, is the aftermath of the Gaza war earlier this year--and that the Sunni Hamas has no trouble allying itself with Iran and will be willing to do Iran's bidding to throw a wrench into the works by escalating tensions with Israel.

Nevertheless, Goldberg is persistent that the current situation with Iran provides a unique opportunity--to the extent that the issue of Israeli settlements can be skipped over altogether:

David Makovsky, one of the most respected experts on the peace process (and the co-author of a new book, Myths, Illusions, and Peace, about how to revive the process), suggests that freezing settlements should not become an end in itself. “There is a convergence of interests between the Arabs and Israelis on Iran. As such, this moment is a gift that shouldn’t be wasted,” Makovsky says. “The two sides need to put their differences in perspective to address the common challenge.” He suggests leapfrogging the settlements issue and moving to border demarcation. “This is not like the issues of Jerusalem and the status of refugees or security arrangements,” he said. “Both sides have already come very close on the West Bank land issue.” The former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, before leaving office, suggested that the future state of Palestine be built on 93 percent of the West Bank, and receive additional territory from Israel in a land swap.

Read the whole thing.

Again, talk of significant concessions is limited to Israel, though Goldberg dutifully makes mention of Arab gestures such as "direct flights between their capitals and Tel Aviv, and a host of other symbolic yet important moves." Again, concessions Israel has made in the past are forgotten and everything rests on what concessions Israel is willing to make now.

All of this depends on the assumption that the Arab fear of Iranian control in the Middle East is trumped by consideration for Palestinian Arabs--and their allies. Those allies are unidentified; they will not be found in Iraq, Kuwait and Lebanon. Syria will not join such a coalition anyway, though that will not stop Obama from trying.

The bottom line is whether the Arab countries really do see a threat in Iran: if they do, Israeli concessions should not be an issue. If they do not, then nothing will change that--and Israel is back to relying on itself to deal with the Iranian threat.

Israel should not have to pay extra to join this club.

UPDATE: I was just wondering why, if Goldberg is correct that Israel must make concessions in order to allow the Arab countries to establish street creds with the pro-Palestinian element--if that is the case, then why is the US the number one donator to UNRWA? Why don't these Arab countries feel pressure to donate more to their fellow Arabs?

Just wondering...

Also, Israel Matzav dissects the Goldberg article.

[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Haveil Havalim #225--The "Welcome New Israelis" Edition--Is Up!

This week, How To Be Israeli is Hosting the 225th edition of Havel Havalim: The "Welcome New Israelis" Edition, with an ecclectic variety of posts from the JBlogosphere.

For information about hosting, email Jack at talktojacknow-at-sbcglobal-dot-net. You can submit your post to the next edition of haveil havalim using the carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found at the blog carnival index page.
Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.

Larry Franklin Interview Reveals Depth Of Anti-Semitism In Government

The Forward has an interview with Larry Franklin, the Pentagon analyst who in October 2005 pled guilty to conspiring with AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman in obtaining and distributing classified information:

“I’ve learned a lot by crawling on the ground,” the 62-year-old father of five said in his first interview since the affair began in 2004. The lessons that Franklin has learned from his experience include the capacity by his colleagues and partners for — as he sees it — betrayal, and the persistence, he has concluded, of deep-rooted antisemitic sentiment in certain quarters of America’s intelligence community.

“I was asked about every Jew I knew in OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense], and that bothered me,” Franklin said. His superiors at the time were both Jewish: Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, whom Franklin believes was a target of the investigation. “One agent asked me, ‘How can a Bronx Irish Catholic get mixed up with…’ and I finished the phrase for him: ‘with these Jews.’”...

Franklin believes that the kind of Anti-semitism he saw then was not an isolated incident and has developed over time:

Some in the government, he believes, “had some fantasy of a conspiracy” that had continued, unabated, after the 1985 arrest and 1987 conviction of Pentagon intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard on charges of spying for Israel.

According to Franklin, the investigators he dealt with believed “that Pollard had a secret partner, a mole, probably in the OSD.” This quest to expose the mole, Franklin said, was, in part, “energized by a more malevolent emotion — antisemitism.”

In part, it was also fed by a deep suspicion toward Israel. “In the intelligence community,” he said, “you refer to Israelis as ‘Izzis’ and it doesn’t have a pleasant connotation. They can’t get away with kikes, so they say Izzis.” This suspicion became clear to Franklin as he learned of the way investigators viewed activists of the pro-Israel lobby.

Read the whole thing.

The Anti-Semitism that Franklin points to became evident much earlier--back in 1997, when Army tank engineer David Tenenbaum, was accused in 1997 of spying for Israel. Last year, The New York Sun had an article on Tenenbaum's 11-year quest to clear his name:

This month, new details emerged when an independent watchdog organization called the Project on Government Oversight [link] published new internal documents relating to the Pentagon inspector general's investigation into the handling of the Tenenbaum case.

Among the documents is a presentation laying out the inspector general's findings. The presentation's third slide says, "Mr. Tenenbaum experienced religious discrimination when his Judaism was weighed as a significant factor in the decision to submit him for an increase in his security clearance."

The investigation then went on to quote several Pentagon officials involved in the case against Mr. Tenenbaum acknowledging that his religion and his contacts in Israel were grounds at least in part for launching the investigation against him. A discrimination suit brought by Mr. Tenenbaum was thrown out of federal court after the government requested the judge acknowledge that the Army would need to disclose state secrets in order to mount its defense.

According to a sworn affidavit of Mr. Tenenbaum, when he took his first polygraph test in 1997, his questioner said to him: "I have done other Jews before and gotten them to confess and I'll get you to confess too," and, "I can tell you are lying by looking into your eyes."

Jewish community leaders and former Defense Department officials say Mr. Tenenbaum's case represents a disturbing phenomenon.

"There are other cases that have been brought to our attention over the years. Often people are afraid to go public for fear of further retribution, but there clearly has to be a systemic approach to this and let justice be done for those who have been discriminated against," said the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein. "This case is a blatant example of discrimination that is tolerated within the system against Jews and perhaps others. For 11 years this innocent man has suffered and paid a heavy price, personally, financially, socially. There is no compensation that is adequate for that suffering." [emphasis added]

On the website of the Project for Government Oversight, they post an alert with links to documents:

The Project On Government Oversight has obtained a cache of documents from inside the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s Office that raises a variety of questions, troubling and even bizarre.

Here are some excerpts from one of the documents (PDF), with statements from some of the parties involved:

o "I also felt that he had natural religious and ethic (sic) sympathies which the Israelis could try to exploit."

Project On Government Oversight notes:

This statement is one example of the religious bias that existed as officials were deciding whether to request a pretextual upgrade of Tenenbaum's security clearance in furtherance of a counterintelligence investigation. When reviewed by LOIG DOD's Director of Employment & Equal Opportunity, this quote was found to be similar to quotes in cases in which juries found discrimination.

o "Yes...I believe that David's obvious love for culture and the land, his dream to anything that involved Israeli projects, people and consequently he spent more time with Israeli citizens than anybody else I know by far and I believe that John possibly others saw that as a risk."

o "[I] am assuming that if he were not Jewish he would not do all the things that he does, you know relative to Israel...if being a Jew is a package deal because he's a Jew he wants to do all of these things and he does all of these things with his family and yeah I think that played."

Obviously, this is a problem that is not going away.

[Hat tip: Powerline]

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Larry Franklin and Anti-Semitism.

Ahmadinejad Wants To Talk With Obama--Obama Loses Either Way

Ahmadinejad says he wants to talk with Obama--publicly:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wants to engage President Obama in "negotiations" before international media, a semi-official Iranian news outlet reported on Saturday.

Speaking at a meeting of medical school deans, Ahmadinejad said Iran "will soon pursue a new round of diplomatic activity" amid a new position of strength for the Iranian government, the Iranian Student News Agency quotes him as saying.

"I will go to the United Nations and will invite Obama to negotiations," Ahmadinejad said, adding that such talks would be "in front of the international media, not a sit-down behind closed doors in order to talk about matters."

Well, that's awfully nice of him, considering what he was saying about Obama and the US just last week:

"You were standing against the Iranian people in the past 60 years," Mr Ahmadinejad said during an address in the western region of Khermenshah that was broadcast by state television.

"Those who speak of change must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran."

As to the troops, he said he expected two kinds of "deep and fundamental" change.

"Meet people, talk to them with respect and put an end to the expansionist policies. If you talk about change it must put an end to the US military presence in the world, withdraw your troops and take them back inside your borders."

Mr Ahmadinejad said the advocates of change must "stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals".

He called on the United States to "stop interfering in other people's affairs".

He also said the US government should "let the American people decide their own future ... Stop pressuring them," he added, without saying what he was referring to.

Yeah, that last part was a nice touch--completely incomprehensible, considering what he and the Iranian regime are doing to crush demonstrations.

The fact remains that Ahmadinejad has not come out of the current turmoil in Iran unscathed--both within Iran and outside, Ahmadinejad has found that he is not welcome by everyone. What better way to strengthen his position than to pay one more visit to the UN and to engage in dialog with Obama publicly.

The situation is thick with irony: the same Obama who refuses to recognize the actions of Honduras which in accordance with its own laws removed Zelaya, who was trying to circumvent his country's constitution--this same Obama will publicly engage Ahmadinejad in dialog, thereby validating the Iran election.

Of course, Obama has not agreed to meeting Ahmadinejad yet. But if he does not, Obama will be contradicting his stated willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad.

Obama risks either validating Ahmadinejad as the winner of the election--dealing a major blow to the demonstrations, or going back on his word to talk with Iran. After all, if the UN lets him speak as the leader of Iran, who is Obama to refuse?

Of course, Obama could take a stand and refuse Ahamdinejad entry to the US altogether, but chances are we will see a more 'nuanced' approach instead.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Ahmadinejad and Obama.

Is Ahmadinejad Damaged Goods?

The LA Times is reporting that these days, Ahmadinejad if feeling kind of isolated:

• Russian President Dmitry Medvedev publicly greeted Ahmadinejad at a recent meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but did not grant him a private meeting as he had the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan
  
  
• In Belarus, the Iranian leader was met not by President Alexander Lukashenko, but by the speaker of the upper house of parliament
  
  
• Authorities in Jordan withdrew licenses for two Iranian news organizations this week
  
  
• The sultan of Oman reportedly canceled a trip to Tehran

Read the whole thing.

This follows news that Ahmadinejad was unwelcome in parts of Iran itself:

• Last Friday, his visit to Shiraz, Iran's cultural capital, was called off on "security grounds."
  
  
• On Monday, the Foreign Ministry canceled what was to be the first-ever visit by an Iranian leader to Libya.
  
  
• On Tuesday, it was announced that Ahmadinejad will not be traveling to Sharm-el-Sheik in Egypt to address the summit of the nonaligned movement.
  
  
• Ahmadinejad's campaign to lead the "nonaligned" group and host its next summit in Tehran in 2012.
  
  
• Long-planned visits with six leftist leaders in their Latin American capitals were placed on the back-burner.

If Iranians get the idea, the Arab world gets the idea, and even the Russians get the idea--how much longer will it take Obama?

Technorati Tag: Iran Election and Ahmadinejad.

Why Obama Is Pressing Bibi On The Settlements--And Why It Won't Work (Updated)

Steve Rosen, formerly of AIPAC, examines what he considers Obama's 'bizarre' insistence over making an issue out of Israel's settlements. He considers what might be motivating Obama--the same "Yes We Can" attitude that has convinced voters that Obama can achieve what has eluded previous leaders, an attitude that even has some in Israel convinced that Netanyahu will not be able to stand up to the US. Part of this thinking is pragmatic, noting that the issue of Israeli settlements does not have the support of the US Congress nor the undivided support of the American Jewish community itself.

Then there is the model for pressuring Israel--former President George H.W. Bush, who pressured then Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir about those same settlements back in 1991. As a result of that pressure, Shamir was voted out by the Israeli voters, Yitzchak Rabin was voted in and the path to Oslo was begun.

That sounds all well and good, but Rosen explains why Obama's calculations--and those who think he has all the cards--are off:

But this comparison is misleading. Obama's confrontation is taking place mere weeks after the formation of a new Israeli government, not months before an Israeli prime minister has to face his voters again. What's more, Israeli voters have elected the most conservative Knesset in Israel's history. The parties of the left -- Labor and Meretz -- had 56 seats in 1992, but they have shrunk to 16 seats today. The real pressure on Netanyahu in today's Israel is from the right. If Obama hopes to invigorate the country's moribund left, he's in for a rude shock: the gains it would need to force either new elections or a different coalition more compliant to U.S. demands are daunting.

Moreover, the hawks have many ways to constrain and compel the prime minister. In fact, Netanyahu is in the opposite position of Shamir. Succumbing to U.S. pressure is the one thing that might bring Bibi down, but keeping the conservatives in his coalition offers him every prospect of serving a full term until the next scheduled Israeli election in 2013. Netanyahu can, and will, say "no" if his only choice is the one the Obama team is now offering: total capitulation.

Netanyahu does have the political strength to reaffirm previous compromises made by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert to limit natural growth. This includes the "construction line" principle that would restrict development to infill construction within already built-up areas while preventing further geographic expansion beyond the outer line of existing structures. But the Israeli prime minister does not have the legal authority, let alone the necessary political foundation, to impose an absolute and complete freeze on all construction in all settlements. Few in Israel are prepared to freeze construction in the "blocs," today primarily those on the Israeli side of the security fence, that the Clinton administration anticipated would be annexed to Israel as part of a land swap creating a Palestinian state. Nor does Netanyahu have either the legal authority or the support of the public to ban Jewish housing inside the juridical boundaries of Jerusalem, on land that might have been outside Israel's borders before 1967 but was formally annexed to Israel a quarter century ago by the Jerusalem law of 1980.

The Obama administration would be smarter to play a more nuanced game and make the distinctions it is avoiding. Only a minority of Israelis support construction of housing in outlying settlements beyond Israel's security fence, but construction in the blocs and especially in Jewish communities in Jerusalem is supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public and all the major political parties. Absolutist demands for a total freeze may win applause in the United States even from some in the U.S. Jewish community, but they go much too far to succeed in the real world.

Read the whole thing.

Of course, after putting pressure on Israel so forcefully, Obama can hardly back off without losing face with the Arab world--so soon after the Cairo speech.

Then again, we have seen that for Obama, flip-flopping on important issues does not exactly go against the grain--nor for Netanyahu, for that matter.

At some point, someone is going to have to blink.

UPDATE: Former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Zalman Shoval says there are signs of a slight change in the Obama administration’s approach to the issue:

“I have just returned from a series of important and interesting talks with leaders in Washington,” Shoval told Arutz-7’s Hebrew newsmagazine, “including heads of the previous administration, such as former National Security Council head Stephen Hadley and Elliott Abrams. They all confirmed what was publicized this week, that there were understandings between the Bush Administration and Ariel Sharon [that Israel could continue settlement construction after the Disengagement from Gush Katif – ed]. They even drew the maps for me, and I am certain that the Obama administration knows these facts too.”

Shoval said that there is a willingness in Washington “to find solutions for the mini-crisis that has arisen on the matter of settlements. The Americans realize that this dispute has grown out of proportion, and that there are more important things than the settlements – for instance, the recent events in Iran.”

Of course, compromises will still require concessions from Israel--and even in the case of temporary concessions, their temporary nature can easily become forgotten. Considering the memory of the Obama administration, that is a real possibility.

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Obama.

On The 10th Anniversary Of The Yahrzeit of Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg zt"l

THE ESSENCE OF GREATNESS

Rabbi Avi Shafran


The unaffiliated Jewish woman attended three of the rabbi’s lectures in the 1950s, visibly intrigued by the ideas he put forth, about the historicity of the Jewish religious tradition. Then she abruptly stopped coming.

Another woman who had also attended the lecture series tracked her down and asked why she was no longer showing up. The first woman answered straightforwardly: “He was convincing me. If I continue to listen to this man, I will have to change my life.”

What a remarkably honest person. (I like to imagine that she came, in time, to pursue what she then fled.)

And what a remarkable man was the rabbi who delivered the lectures. He was Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg, of blessed memory, whose tenth yahrtzeit, or death-anniversary, will be marked on the fast day of Shiva Asar BiTammuz (July 9). He later became the Rosh Yeshiva, or Dean, of the Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore. He was my rebbe.

As an 18-year-old studying in the Baltimore yeshiva in 1972, I watched him from afar. His father-in-law, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman, of blessed memory, was the Rosh Yeshiva then; Rabbi Weinberg headed the Kollel, or graduate student program, and also delivered general Talmudic lectures. The depth of his knowledge, the power of his critical analyses of both Talmudic and worldly topics, his eloquence and his knowledge of history and the sciences all impressed me deeply.

But what I came to realize was that his brilliance and erudition were mere tools with which he was gifted. His essence was his dedication to truth, to Torah and to his students – indeed, to all Jews – and his humility.

When I think back on the many times I telephoned Rabbi Weinberg from wherever I was living at the time to ask him a question about Jewish law or philosophy, or for his advice, I am struck by something I never gave much thought to at those times: He was always available. And, I have discovered over the years, not only to me. As I came to recognize all the others – among them greatly accomplished Torah scholars, congregational rabbis and community leaders today – who had also enjoyed a student-rebbe relationship with Rabbi Weinberg, I marveled. In my youthful self-centeredness, I had imagined him as my rebbe alone. Who knew?

And his ongoing interactions with his students somehow didn’t prevent him from travelling wherever his services were needed. A sought-after speaker and arbitrator for individuals and communities alike, he somehow found time and energy for it all.

More telling, he felt responsible to undertake it all. He (and, may she be well, his wife, Rebbetzin Chana Weinberg) gave so very much to others (as the Rebbetzin continues to do). That, I long ago concluded, is the defining characteristic of true Gedolim, literally “great ones” – the term reserved for the most knowledgeable and pious Torah leaders of each generation: selflessness.

How painfully ironic, I sometimes think, that small, spiteful minds try to portray Gedolim oppositely. Then again, as the weekly Torah-portion of Korach recently read in synagogue reminds us, no less a Godol than Moses – the “most humble of all men” – was also spoken of cynically by some in his day. Plus ça change…

It wasn’t just in his public life, in his service to students and communities that Rabbi Weinberg’s self-effacement was evident. It was in little things too.

In the early 1980s, he was asked to temporarily take the helm of a small yeshiva in Northern California that had fallen on hard times. Although not a young man, he agreed to leave his home and position in Baltimore and become interim dean.

My wife and I and our three daughters lived in the community; I taught in the yeshiva and served as principal of the local Jewish girls’ high school. And so I was fortunate to have ample opportunity to work with Rabbi Weinberg, and to witness much that I will always remember. One small episode, though, remains particularly poignant.

Rabbi Weinberg was housed in a bedroom of a rented house. In the house’s other bedroom lived the yeshiva’s cooks – a middle-aged couple, recently immigrated from the Soviet Union.

Though Northern California has a wonderful climate, its winters can be a bit chilly, and the house’s heating system was not working. The yeshiva administrator made sure that extra blankets were supplied to the house’s residents, and an electric heater was procured for Rabbi Weinberg (the cooks, it was figured, had been toughened by a truly cold clime).

After a week or two of cold, rainy weather, it was evident that Rabbi Weinberg had caught a bad cold. Suspecting that perhaps the electric heater was not working, someone went to his room to check it. It wasn’t there.

Where it was, it turned out, was in the cooks’ room. Confronted with the discovery, Rabbi Weinberg sheepishly admitted to having relocated the heater. “I thought they would be cold,” was all he said.

Another heater was bought. And a lesson, once again, learned, about the essence of a Godol.

© 2009 AM ECHAD RESOURCES

[Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.]

All Am Echad Resources essays are offered without charge for personal use and sharing, and for publication with permission, provided the above copyright notice is appended.

Technorati Tag: Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg.

From Turkey: A Game Show Featuring A Rabbi, A Muslim Imam, A Greek Orthodox Priest, And A Buddhist Monk

Just look at what Simon Cowell has inspired--The name of the show is Penitents Compete:

Contestants will ponder whether to believe or not to believe when they pit their godless convictions against the possibilities of a new relationship with the almighty on Penitents Compete (Tovbekarlar Yarisiyor in Turkish), to be broadcast by the Kanal T station. Four spiritual guides from the different religions will seek to convert at least one of the 10 atheists in each programme to their faith.

Those persuaded will be rewarded with a pilgrimage to the spiritual home of their newly chosen creed – Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Christians and Jews, and Tibet for Buddhists.

The programme's makers say they want to promote religious belief while educating Turkey's overwhelmingly Muslim population about other faiths.

"The project aims to turn disbelievers on to God," the station's deputy director, Ahmet Ozdemir, told the Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review.

...Only true non-believers need apply.

Read the whole thing.

The show has also figured out all of the angles:

• A group of 8 theologians will test the credentials of the contestants to make sure they are true atheists
  
  
• The potential converts will be monitored to make sure they have really converted and are not just looking for a free trip.

I'm wondering though:

• How fair is it that Islam has the home court advantage.
  
  
• If the contestant converts to Judaism, he automatically loses: no Orthodox Beis Din will accept such a conversion, so technically there is no way for the contestant to really convert--which allows the runner-up to protest.
  
  
• Will there be a celebrity version featuring Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins?
  
  
• The potential comparisons to American Idol stagger the imagination--interviews with the contestants as they leave the interview room after finding out if they qualify, judges critiquing the contestants as argue for their atheism, the tension each week as a contestant is eliminated based on the votes texted in.
  

Hmmm, maybe they're onto something--can Atheist Survivors be far behind?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Conversion.

How Is Netanyahu's Approval Rating? Obama, Eat Your Heart Out

Obama, eat your heart out.
From Rasmussen Reports:


Netanyahu's numbers may not compare with Obama's in terms of personal ratings, and no one is making fancy graphics about how Netanyahu is doing--yet unlike Obama, a poll shows that Bibi's approval ratings are going up:

A public-opinion survey commissioned by Haaretz to gauge Netanyahu's popularity as he approaches 100 days shows favorable results, despite the criticism since April for his gauche handling of the national budget and the diplomatic crisis with the U.S.

His two key appointments, Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister and Yuval Steinitz as finance minister, also drew fire.

The survey by Dialog, conducted Thursday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University, found Netanyahu's approval ratings were 18 percent higher than Tzipi Livni's - a much larger margin than when they were competing for prime minister. Asked who was better suited to be prime minister, 52 percent said Netanyahu, while only 34 said Livni.

The respondents gave Netanyahu's cabinet a barely passing grade of 5.6 points out of 10. Forty percent said the cabinet was not leading Israel in the right direction, while 37 percent said it was.

Netanyahu's approval ratings may have jumped 5 points since the last Dialog survey, on June 15. In the most recent survey, 49 percent of the 500 respondents said they were satisfied with Netanyahu's performance. The survey results have a margin of error of 4.5 percent.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman jumped 9 points since a May 14 survey, with a 40-percent satisfaction rate. Defense Minister Ehud Barak improved by only one point.

Read the whole thing.
IMRA has the actual numbers:

Grade from 1-10 for Netanyahu Government: 5.6

How does the Netanyahu Government perform as compared to the Olmert
Government before it?
Better 43% Worse 30% Don't know/refuse reply 27%

Is the Netanyahu Government leading Israel in the right direction?
Yes 37% No 40% Don't know/refuse reply 23%

Percent satisfied with performance of:
[results from 14 May poll in [brackets] for all but Netanyahu - Netanyahu previous poll 15 June]
PM Netanyahu 49%[44%]
FM Lieberman 40%[31%]
DM Barak 61%[60%]
Finance Minister Steinitz 29%[18%]
Education Minister Saar 43%[45%]
Interior Minister Yishai 43%

Who is most appropriate to serve as prime minister?
Netanyahu 52% Livni 34% Don't know/refuse reply 14%

Read the whole thing.

It is odd that Haaretz does not mention the results to the question about whether Netanyahu is leading Israel in the right direction. Even if statistically those who approve and disapprove are in a dead heat, the numbers put a damper on the positive implications of Bibi's other numbers--or, it could just mean that Israelis are not sure themselves about what to do.

Or maybe, like Obama, the people just like the leader more than they like what they are doing.

In any case, no one is talking any more about Obama bringing down Netanyahu's coalition.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Obama.

Former Member of Honduran Government Explains Why It's Not A Coup

Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer, and former presidential adviser and minister of culture of the Republic of Honduras, responds to the accusation that President Zelaya's removal from office was the result of a coup:

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don't believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

Read the whole thing.

It just seems odd that Obama is not only making a major issue of events in Honduras, interfering in their internal affairs, and at the same time offering dialog with the likes of Chavez. The parallels with Obama's attitude towards Israel may indicate that the demands from the Obama administration that Israel freeze the settlements may not derive from any Anti-Semitic or Anti-Zionist feelings. He is just acting on the basis of his own personal politics--

Misguided and dangerous politics.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Obama and Honduras.

Even After 'Winning' The Election, Ahmadinejad Doesn't Get Any Respect

Amir Taheri writes that Ahmadinejad may very well be the most unwelcome guest in Iran:

FOR 30 years, the tradition has been for each newly elected president of the Is lamic Republic to travel at once to Mashad, Iran's main "holy" city, to thank Ali bin Mussa, the only one of Shiism's 12 imams buried in Iranian soil.

When he was first elected president four years ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made much of the Mashad trip by spreading rumors about his "secret" connections with the imams. This year, the state-owned media were presented his new pilgrimage as a "working visit" during which the imam would review and approve the president-elect's program.

But Ahmadinejad was forced at the last minute to scrub the trip. Angry Mashadis, many of whom believe Ahmadinejad stole the election, were determined to give him a rough reception. Despite the presence of some 15,000 Basij security men in the city, the authorities couldn't guarantee the president's safety -- let alone deliver the enthusiastic, welcoming crowds that he requires for propaganda purposes.

And that is not the only setback that Ahmadinejad has suffered:

• Last Friday, his visit to Shiraz, Iran's cultural capital, was called off on "security grounds."
  
  
• On Monday, the Foreign Ministry canceled what was to be the first-ever visit by an Iranian leader to Libya.
  
  
• On Tuesday, it was announced that Ahmadinejad will not be traveling to Sharm-el-Sheik in Egypt to address the summit of the nonaligned movement.
  
  
• Ahmadinejad's campaign to lead the "nonaligned" group and host its next summit in Tehran in 2012.
  
  
• Long-planned visits with six leftist leaders in their Latin American capitals were placed on the back-burner.

Taheri notes:

Wounded politically at home, perhaps mortally, Ahmadinejad is in no position to claim an international leadership position.

Read the whole thing.

There may very well be only one other person who has had such difficulty getting respect.

Separated at birth?

Technorati Tag: Iran Elections and Ahmadinejad.

Surprise! U.S. Can't Get Arabs To Commit To Normal Israel Ties

Go figure!

The U.S. administration has not been successful in securing commitments from Arab countries to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel, a senior source in Jerusalem said Wednesday.

The source said U.S. President Barack Obama's recent meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did not produce a commitment to encourage the other Arab states to begin normalization.

"In such a situation, the Americans can't continue demanding gestures only from Israel, such as the demand that Israel freeze settlement construction," the source said.

In response, a senior White House source said talks with the Arab states are continuing with the aim of obtaining a commitment to make gestures toward Israel, and there is still hope for progress.

Read the whole thing.

Somehow, getting the Arabs "to make gestures toward Israel" is probably the least of their problems. As it is, demanding concessions from Israel in the absence of any reciprocal move by the Arabs is unlikely to stop the Obama administration from making demands of Israel--after all, how else to encourage the Arab world?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

In Sderot, Trauma Is The Unreported Casualty of War

David Bedein MSW, a community organization mental health practitioner who directs The Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem, Israel, also advises the Sderot Information Center for The Western Negev in Sderot, Israel.

In Trauma: the unreported casualty of war, Bedein writes about the casualties in Sderot that are not captured in the soundbites of the media:

In January, during the Israeli military incursion into Gaza which followed continuous shelling of Sderot and the Western Negev from Gaza, a BBC correspondent stood on a lookout point where she could see both Sderot and Gaza, and reported that more than 1,000 people had been killed in Gaza, while 13 people had been killed in Sderot and the Western Negev. 'The numbers speak for themselves,' she said.

If this were a sporting event tabulating the number of fatalities on each side, the BBC reporter would have a point. However, while newscasts from southern Israel do report the torrent of missiles from Gaza, these soundbites are often followed by a laconic news announcement of 'No damage and injuries', suggesting that there is no news story of any human interest for the public to be concerned about.

Nothing to be concerned about? In a story that has repeated itself hundreds of times, a shaken Sderot woman who had witnessed a missile explode in her yard and miss her home and family by a few metres, stared with disbelief at a reporter who congratulated her that she had suffered 'No damage and injuries'. Looking at the reporter, with her whole body quivering uncontrollably, she said to her that 'It's easier to photograph blood than to photograph the soul'.

Indeed, in a world of fast-moving images on the screen and even on the net, it is nearly impossible to portray this woman's psychological situation. The sight of blood is easier to report than an entire population living in fear and helplessness, with no ordinary life. Shrapnel injures the body; the body receives treatments and heals. The mental issue is more complicated to relate.

Indeed, the attacks from Gaza on southern Israel are not necessarily waged to inflict fatalities. These attacks, described in military jargon as 'low intensity conflict', destabilise the other side, and instill fear into the daily lives of the people. So when a siren goes off to warn of an incoming missile, an entire population knows that it has 15 seconds to scamper for shelter. Israel's southern region has endured more than 12,000 mortar, Kassam and Grad missile attacks over a period of eight years. That means that on 12,000 occasions, an entire population has run for cover.

Read the whole thing.

In a rare exception, the BBC has an article about the Uneasy recovery for Sderot and south Israel, with accounts of various Israeli families in Sderot and Ashdod who are continuing to deal with trauma--and with the deaths of loved ones.

Check it out.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Sderot.

This Is What Honduras Gets For Staging A Bloodless Coup (Updated)

The Obama is sticking to its guns and insisting in the strongest terms that Honduran President Zelaya was illegally remove by a coup. As far as coups go--this one was conducted without alot of violence:

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.”

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the removal of Zelaya had the backing of the Honduran supreme court and congress, Obama has insisted that the coup is illegal. Duri