Just How Do You Measure The Level Of Democracy In A Terrorist State?

In my last post, I wrote about the Democracy Index for 2017, compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Looking at its evaluation of Israel gave an opportunity to contrast 2 very different views of what the index revealed about Israel.

But the Democracy Index also evaluates "Palestine" and Iran, for example

Which raises the question: How do those two jive with this description of "democracy," from the report?

Are The Arab Gulf States Really Ready for a Regional Alliance With Israel?

“[Besides Egypt and Jordan,] many other states in the region recognize that Israel is not their enemy. They recognize that Israel is their ally. Our common enemies are ISIS and Iran. Our common goals are security, prosperity and peace. I believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, in speech to UN General Assembly, September 22, 2016

Is The Enemy of My Enemy -- My Friend, or My Ally?

At a time when there are still some who insist that Israel is isolated in the international community, it is becoming increasingly clear that Israel is in fact building new friendships and alliances. In his speech at the end of December last year, criticizing Israel, Kerry described Israel's friends as United Kingdom, France and Russia. But Netanyahu's recent trip to Singapore and Australia extends Israel's circle beyond that. Meanwhile closer to home, Netanyahu has visited Africa, visiting Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Ethiopia.

And then, even closer to home, are the Arab countries.

Israel has diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan.
It has no relations with Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Israel has unofficial relations with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman.

World Chess Federation Requires Hijab At Iran Tournament -- Fallaci Tossing Chador At Khomeini's Feet Is Just a Memory

The big news in Chess last month was the decision by FIDE (Federation Internationale des Echecs), which resulted in headlines that Female Chess Players Forced to Wear Hijab as Governing Body Awards World Championship to Iran:

The world's top female chess players have reacted with horror after being told they must compete at next year's world championship wearing a hijab.

Within hours of Iran being revealed as its host country, the prestigious event was plunged into crisis as it emerged players taking part face arrest if they don't cover up.

Iran May Enjoy Holocaust Cartoons, But Here Is One Cartoon They Were Skittish About

At least that is how Iran felt 10 years ago, back in 2006.

Reuters reported at the time that Iran demands apology for German soccer cartoon:

The Iranian embassy in Germany has demanded a written apology from a Berlin newspaper that printed a cartoon of Iranian soccer players dressed as suicide bombers and threatened legal action if none is forthcoming.

The sketch, published on Friday by Der Tagesspiegel, shows four moustachioed soccer players wearing Iran shirts with explosives strapped to their chests next to four German soldiers in a soccer stadium.

Kerry Claims He Knows What Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement Looks Like -- Anything Like His Iran Deal?

So John Kerry sat down and had a conversation Professor Graham Allison

And I think you know what always perplexes me is, I mean, we’ve been through Oslo, Wye Plantation, Madrid, countless negotiations. Most people I talk to have a pretty damn good sense of exactly what has to be done and where it goes. It’s a question of making the judgments and having courage to go there. And so we’re not finished. We have another 16 months in this Administration, and I can assure you we’re going to stay engaged and continue to try to work through these issues, because there are options and there’s a better other side of the current conflict that we’re witnessing.

But while Kerry informs us that he is one of those who know exactly what has to be done, and what peace should look like, one really has to wonder.

Keep in mind that Kerry is coming off an "understanding" with Iran that is based on a variety of unilateral concessions that the US and the West have made to Iran.

The following by Efraim Inbar is reposted here with the permission of the Middle East Form:

How Dangerous is ISIS to Israel?

by Efraim Inbar
BESA Center Perspectives
September 7, 2015

http://www.meforum.org/5473/israel-isis

Many Arabs are concerned less by the nature of ISIS atrocities than by the fact that they aren't committed primarily against Israelis.

ISIS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate in June 2014, with the city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings and other means of executions. In Israel, concern is increasing as ISIS nears Israeli borders.

Yet, several analyses of the threat ISIS poses to Israel seem to be unnecessarily alarmist. ISIS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria and Iraq showed the Islamic State's tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened militaries. When and where ISIS has met well organized opposition by non-state entities, such as that posed by Kurdish militias, the group's performance has been less convincing.

Video: Kerry's 3 Demonstrably False Statements During Congressional Hearing Into Iran Agreement Last Week

Note: I posted this last week with the embed from Fox News -- it didn't work, so I am posting it again with the embed from You Tube.

If this is an illustration of Kerry's grasp of the facts, it is no wonder we came out on the short end of the stick.

The debunking of Kerry's "rhetorical flourishes" comes at the 1:10 of this video:

Arlene Kushner on How Congress Managed To Put Onus For Iran Deal on Critics Instead of on Obama

From Arlene Kushner:
April 19, 2015

The Bottom Line

...on the unanimous vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to advance the bill, sponsored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), which would give Congress the right to review the deal currently being worked out with Iran.

Yes, as I wrote last week, it is a step in the right direction, as Senators are beginning to insist upon their right to be involved in this critical deal.  But it falls short in a very critical respect.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of Commentary, effectively explains this in “The Reverse Iran Deal Ratification Process” (emphasis added):

“...By treating it as a normal act of legislation, the president will be able to veto the measure. That sets up a veto override effort that will force Iran deal critics to get to 67 votes, a veto-proof majority. If that sounds reasonable to you, remember that in doing so the bill creates what is, in effect, a reverse treaty ratification mechanism. Instead of the president needing a two-thirds majority to enact the most significant foreign treaty the United States has signed in more than a generation, he will need only one-third of the Senate plus one to get his way.

Is Watered Down Corker-Menendez Bill A Concession To Obama Or Victory For Congress? Media Claims Latter

The Israel Project sent out an email today on the messaging battle that is going on between the White House and the Senate over the Obama administration dropping its threat to veto the Corker-Menendez bill, legislation that would boost Congressional oversight over any Iran deal.

Spokesman Josh Earnest made the announcement at yesterday's press briefing, just as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was convening for what would be a 19-0 vote in favor of the bill. The declaration reversed months of explicit administration threats to veto legislation that would give Congress an expanded voice in Iran negotiations.

The White House spin was that Corker-Menendez had been substantively hollowed out by a morning compromise between Sens. Corker and Cardin, so that had become acceptable. The bills' supporters countered that the core oversight requirements remained intact, and that the administration caved because it knew a veto would be overridden. Corker on Twitter: "The simple fact is that the White House dropped its veto threat because they weren’t going to have the votes to sustain a veto" [1].

The subsequent news cycle did not reflect the White House's messaging:

David Goldman on: Why Don't Americans Trust Republicans on Foreign Policy?

The following by David P. Goldman is reposted here with permission of The Middle East Forum:

Why Don't Americans Trust Republicans on Foreign Policy?

by David P. Goldman
PJ Media
April 11, 2015

http://www.meforum.org/5172/republicans-foreign-policy-voters

Riddle me this, fellow Republicans. An NBC survey April 9 reports that a huge majority (70%) of Americans doubt that Iran will abide by any agreement to limit its nuclear arms–but a majority (54%) still think Obama will do a better job than the Republicans in dealing with Iran!

A majority of Americans – 54 percent – trust Barack Obama to do a better job handling an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, compared to 42 percent who say they trust the Republicans in Congress. But nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that Iran is not likely to abide by the agreement that has been reached.

Fifty-three percent think Iranian nukes are a "major threat," and only 37% think they are a "minor threat." Most Americans, in short, think Iran is a major threat to American security and think that Obama's nuclear deal is a joke–but they still want Obama in charge of the negotiations, not us.

After Lausanne, Where Does the Agreement/Framework/Understanding With Iran Stand Now?

The New York Times, in reporting an "agreement" implies that whatever is announced will fall short of the original goals going into Lausanne. Instead of having a framework agreement, they'll announce some kind of diplomatic understanding. It will lack the commitments necessary to make it a framework, and the Iranians have refused to allow the parties to call it an agreement.

The Israel Report notes some key things to be on the lookout for as the agreement/framework/understanding is discussed:

Obama Middle East Legacy Suffers Three Setbacks In Six Days of Iran Negotiations

While many in the media will generously report about 'an agreement to keep trying to agree,' -- let's face it: this is where the West and Iran were a year ago.

The past 7 days particularly have not been kind to Obama's attempt at a Middle East legacy, as we have been bombarded with 3 major setbacks to an effective deal with Iran:

Iran Won't Allow Verification Of Its Nuclear Sites -- Will Obama Backtrack on Yet Another Condition For A Nuclear Deal?

The Wall Street Journal reports on how Iran may prevent verification of any nuclear deal with the West

Talks over Iran’s nuclear program have hit a stumbling block a week before a key deadline because Tehran has failed to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past, say people close to the negotiations.

The Israel Project has been following this and other developments very closely. In a series of emails it sent out, TIP explained the huge significance of Iran's refusal.

Summary of Key Points of Netanyahu Iran Speech to Congress -- With Video and Transcript

The substance of Netanyahu's speech:

• Two major concessions have gutted the Iran deal, making it into bad deal: a concession allowing Iran sufficient infrastructure during the deal to permit a breakout (i.e. none or limited dismantlement) and a concession allowing Iran to become a legitimate nuclear power on the brink of breakout after the deal (the sunset clause).
  
  
• Iran should have to meet three conditions, in addition to Iran giving up its nuclear infrastructure, before sanctions are lifted. Iran should be forced to end: aggression against its Arab neighbors, its export of terrorism, its pledge to annihilate Israel. Crucial line: "if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country."
  
  
• Key line overall: "If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them."

Two key points Netanyahu made:

Some Initial Implications of the Hezbollah Attack on Israel

Hezbollah's attack on Israel is being treated not as some cross-border spat, but rather as a regional battle. There are a few initial regional angles that are appearing via Naharnet, not known for being either pro-Israel or anti-Hezbollah:

Arlene Kushner on Obama and Iran -- And The Behind The Scenes Politicking Of Abbas's Resolution At The UN

From Arlene Kushner:
December 30, 2014

A Somber View

Very somber, my friends.  The situation in the world is not worrisome – it’s terrifying.  Consider:

In an interview with NPR, President Obama said that Iran could become a “very successful regional power” if it agrees to a nuclear deal.  He said things must move slowly but he wouldn’t entirely rule out the possibility of opening a US embassy in Tehran before his term ran out.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-iran-could-be-a-very-successful-regional-power/

~~~~~~~~~~

WHAT?  There is nothing on the table in negotiations with Iran at the moment that is serious enough to prevent Iran’s nuclear advancement. The Iranians – a threat to the world – are running rings around an eager Obama.

Arlene Kushner on Sweden Recognizing A Palestinian State (If They Can Find It)

From Arlene Kushner:
October 7

Sukkot

“v'samachta bechagecha”: and you shall rejoice in your festival.  This is it, Sukkot, our season of rejoicing.  My very favorite holiday.  The spirit is in the air, here in Jerusalem.  I look forward to meals in the Sukkah (much larger than the illustration here!), and sleeping in the Sukkah with my grandchildren. 

And blessings over the lulav and etrog.

 

Sukkot starts tomorrow night, and I will post only very erratically, if at all, during the coming eight-day period.  The older I get, and the worse the world seems, the more I understand how important are these moments of joy.  To all celebrating, I wish a Chag Sameach.

~~~~~~~~~~

Are The Saudis Now Accommodating Iran Under US Pressure?

The following by Jonathan Spyer is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

Saudi Shuffle

by Jonathan Spyer
The Jerusalem Post
May 22, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/3830/saudi-shuffle

A number of recent Saudi moves and official statements have led to speculation regarding a possible shift on the kingdom's stance toward Iran.

The Saudis appear to be moving, at least on a declarative level, away from a position according to which Iranian ambitions are a threat to be resisted – toward an attempt to accommodate Tehran.

The speculation regarding a changed Saudi stance rests largely on three recent public events.

The first was the meeting last month between newly minted Saudi ambassador to Tehran Abdul Rahman al-Shehri, and former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Shehri demonstrably kissed Rafsanjani on the forehead during the meeting. In addition to displaying the depth of the ambassador's patriotism, this act was held by some commentators to portend a renewed Saudi determination to set relations with Iran on a new footing.

Gary C. Gambil: Don't Blame the People for Iranian Intransigence

The following by Gary C. Gambill is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

Don't Blame the People for Iranian Intransigence

by Gary C. Gambill
The Jerusalem Post
May 20, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/3828/dont-blame-the-people-for-iranian-intransigence

Supporters of the Obama administration's historic willingness to accommodate Iranian nuclear ambitions frequently contend that ruling elites in Teheran are not politically capable of eliminating or dramatically downsizing their country's uranium enrichment infrastructure, as required by multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. Increasing sanctions on Iran won't change this unfortunate reality, the reasoning goes, so the only alternative to an eventual military solution is accepting a more modest rollback that leaves Iran with sufficient enrichment capacity to produce a bomb in six to 12 months, but subject to intrusive inspections.

Purveyors of the political constraint model of Iranian intransigence are often frustratingly fuzzy on cause and effect. David Patrikarakos argues that Iranian leaders have "invested too much political capital in their enrichment program to give it up unless their own survival is threatened," while RAND Corporation analyst Alireza Nader suggests that "weakness in the face of [outside] pressure might be no less a threat" to their rule than the economic sanctions that have devastated Iran's economy.

Gary C. Gambill: A Sweet Deal for the Mullahs

The following by Gary C. Gambill is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

A Sweet Deal for the Mullahs

by Gary C. Gambill
The National Post
http://www.meforum.org/3818/a-sweet-deal-for-the-mullahs
May 13, 2014

With negotiations between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) and Iran over the fate of its nuclear program set to resume this week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) has released a detailedproposal for a final status settlement. Drawn from months of interviews with Iranian and P5+1 officials, the May 9 report outlines what an agreement splitting the difference between the "red lines" of both sides would look like. For anyone worried about Iran's nuclear intentions, it is a very worrying document indeed.