Kenneth R. Timmerman
Resistance by partisan "shadow warriors" at the Department of State has limited the president's options and is bringing us dangerously close to a military showdown with Iran , former Bush administration official John Bolton told Newsmax in an exclusive interview. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice initially had planned to provide significant aid to the pro-democracy movement in Iran, as a means of giving the president more policy options, Bolton said. But resistance by the State Department bureaucracy crippled the programs and rendered them ineffective.
"[T]he outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime," Bolton said.
"This is a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years, we would be in a lot different position today," he added.
The State Department emphasis on European-led negotiations has allowed Iran to buy time and to perfect the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons, Bolton argued.
Even if President Bush decided to reinvigorate the pro-democracy programs tomorrow, Bolton believes we probably don't have enough time for them to be effective before the Iranians get the bomb.
"I think we are very close to a decision point," Bolton told Newsmax. "And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force."
Bolton said that the CIA shared the State Department's opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly to undermine the Iranian regime, and faulted Secretary of State Rice for getting "co-opted" by the bureaucracy.
"Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and the exclusively diplomatic approach for four years," he said.
This approach is particularly dangerous because the U.S. intelligence community has almost always been wrong in its estimates of when Iran could acquire nuclear weapons capability, Bolton said.
One of reason for the inability to get Iran right is an unwillingness to talk to Iranian defectors. "Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness," he said.
As a result of such prejudices, "[o]ur lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial… Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives."
Bolton worries that bad intelligence, coupled to wishful thinking by bureaucrats who tend to downplay the threat, could lead to strategic surprise by Iran or North Korea.
"I personally do not believe in just-in-time non-proliferation," he said.
Bolton has long been an advocate of muscular diplomacy.
When he served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation during the early years of the Bush administration, he frequently crossed swords with arms control advocates who were viscerally opposed to imposing sanctions on proliferators.
In his recent book, "Surrender is Not an Option," Bolton names one such official, Vann Van Diepen, who refused to act on direct orders to apply nonproliferation sanctions.
As Newsmax revealed on December 4, Van Diepen was one of three former State Department officials who authored the much-disputed recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
The arms controllers are also trying to rewrite history on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Bolton warned.
During negotiations in 2002, the North Korean government admitted that in addition to its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon, it also had a clandestine uranium enrichment program.
For once, Bolton said, "all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program."
And yet today, the arms controllers are trying to walk back that conclusion and "rewrite history" in order to cover-up North Korea's lies and dissembling, Bolton said.
Bolton also was critical of the Bush White House for not doing more to name and retain strong conservatives in the administration.
When his nomination to become the permanent U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was submitted to the Senate, for example, the administration ran a confirmation battle, whereas the Democrats engaged in a full-fledged political campaign. "Given that, the outcome was predictable," Bolton said.
The consequences of allowing the shadow warriors run the government instead of Bush loyalists have been dramatic, since they have succeeded in "turning the President's policy in effect in a 180-degree U-turn" in North Korea and other areas, Bolton said.
Bolton said he planned to continue "hawking" his book until Christmas, then would take off January while he mulled future opportunities.
He said he eventually planned to join one of the Republican presidential campaigns, but hadn't yet chosen his candidate.
Excerpts from the interview:
NEWSMAX: Do you think we are heading for war with Iran?
JOHN BOLTON: I think there is little doubt that Iran has mastered the Science and technology it needs to enrich uranium. That means that the time and the manner in which it acquires a nuclear weapons capability is entirely within its discretion. It's only a matter of resources, and with oil at 90 dollars a barrel plus, Iran doesn't lack for resources. That means that if the president follows through on his view that Iranian nuclear weapons are unacceptable then we are at a decision point very quickly on whether to use military force.
My preference would be regime change in Iran. I think there is a real possibility that the different democratic regime would make the decision that pursuing nuclear weapons is not really in Iran's interest. But that's nothing you can turn on or off like a light switch. So because of the wasted time allowing the Europeans to try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear weapons, I think our options are very few. And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.
NEWSMAX: Why do we have so few options now?
BOLTON: Because by deferring to the EU 3 these last four plus, almost five years. we have limited our ability to do other things to see if we can get effective sanctions at the Security Council. I don't think sanctions are going to have a chance of being effective any longer. Especially not UN sanctions. And this long period of time has put Iran in a much more favorable position . It's a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years we would be in a lot different position today.
It's not just the nuclear program. It's Iran's support for terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, including their activity particularly against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq . So if steps are not taken soon, Iran and other nations in the region will draw the conclusion that we are not serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, we are not serious about stopping Iranian support for terrorism and they will draw the appropriate conclusions, all of which will be negative to American interest.
NEWSMAX: Why hasn't [Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice] done anything to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran? Why has the $75 million program to help the pro-democracy movement had so little impact?
BOLTON: I think there is enormous bureaucratic opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly from both the State and CIA bureaucracies. And as on so many other issues, I think , Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and exclusively diplomatic approach for four years.
NEWSMAX: Do you think she is convinced we can do nothing to help the pro democracy movement? After all this was her program.
BOLTON: This is completely inexplicable to me. On the overt side she announced it with great fanfare, but as we can see with the recent resignation of the head of the program at the State Department, it has gone nowhere. The argument that identifying Iranian Diaspora groups as being linked to our program makes it disadvantageous for them is belied by the statements of many of these groups who say 'we need the help and we're pleased to have it.' But the outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime. So in effect, we have been doing nothing for getting on to five years now except deferring to the Europeans
NEWSMAX: So this leaves us basically with war, or a nuclear armed Iran--
BOLTON? --Or regime change, if we have the time. The problem is we likely do not have the amount of time that would be required. If we only had been more active over the past several years we might not be faced with the unhappy alternative of having to use force.
NEWSMAX: How do you see this scenario developing? How do we get to the point of using military force? What happens next?
BOLTON: I think we are very close to a decision point. There are all kinds of estimates of when Iran will actually have a nuclear capability. They are all based on assumptions. So if some of those assumptions turn out to be wrong, the Iranians can have the weapons capability much earlier than the estimates would lead you to believe.
I personally do not believe in just in-time non-proliferation. There's too much of a risk there that intelligence and analysis can be wrong by understating the threat as well as by overstating the threat. Moreover the Iranians are obviously aware of the risk they run and I think every day that goes by gives them more of an opportunity to harden their existing facilities such as at Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility, or to build completely alternative facilities of which we have no knowledge. Our lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial. That doesn't make me feel better; it makes me more nervous. Time is working against us. Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives.
NEWSMAX: I've just written a book called Shadow Warriors that talks about people in the CIA and the State Department who have attempted to undermine the president's policies. Do you think the $75 million that Condi announced to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran was undermined by people who don't agree with the policy?
BOLTON: I don't think there is any doubt of it. There are many people at the State Department who simply don't like the concept of regime change whether done through pro-democracy groups or done clandestinely. They especially don't like a program that could be said to undercut the European efforts of diplomacy. I think the failure of the $75 million program sends an enormous signal through out the bureaucracy that resistance can work. This is going to have negative consequences not just for the situation in Iran but for a range of other policy issues around the world.
NEWSMAX: So the shadow warriors won this round?
BOLTON: I think there is no doubt about it. I don't profess to know everything that went on, but you can tell when the director of the program resigns and basically says, 'I can't make it work,' that there is obviously something badly wrong.
NEWSMAX: How is this Administration's track record on hiring and keeping conservatives in key positions?
BOLTON: I think it is unfortunately not very good. I talk about this in my book, about what happens when Presidential personnel doesn't focus on the very difficult circumstances appointees face within the State department, which is one of the savviest bureaucracies in Washington experts in co-opting, seducing or subverting political appointees who try to pursue policies it disagrees with. And I think in this Administration, it has had considerable success. I use the example of North Korea, and what's happened to our policy there. What has happened since I wrote the book is an even more graphic example of the bureaucracy in effect turning the President's policy in effect in a 180 degree U-turn.
NEWSMAX: Do you think the North Korean have agreed to talk and to shut down the reactor because they have sold off the critical elements?
BOLTON: I think they are doing the same thing they did under the [1994] Agreed Framework. I think they have been planning to cheat on their declaration and their program and hope they get away with it, which they will if we don't have an adequate verification program.
And I think this facility [in Syria] that the Israelis bombed on September 6 is an indication of yet another alternative, which is either to clone the Yongbyon reactor or outsource some of the nuclear weapons program. How better to hide your North Korean program than to build it in Syria where nobody is looking!
Just this morning there was a story that it may be harder to shut done Yongbyon than people thought. Now this will extend into the next year, which I think is part of North Korea's pattern of slow-rolling the program. But which also shows something which I and others have been saying for some time, which is that Yongbyon is at or beyond its useful life. Part of the reason they have difficulties extracting the fuel rods that are in there now is that the whole facility is in terrible repair, which means they agreeing to freeze it or even to dismantle it is not such a big concession from the North Koreans. They may already have been able to extract as much plutonium as they were going to be able to. Shutting down a broken facility is hardly a sign of good faith .
NEWSMAX: There is a lot of dispute about North Korea's uranium program. You write in your book that the North Koreans talked to our delegation in 2002 about the uranium enrichment program. Do you think that is what they transferred to Syria?
BOLTON: It's hard to say what they've transferred. There was no sign of radiation escaping after the Israeli attack [on Syria], which seems to indicate that they proceeded before there was any actual enriched uranium or even unenriched uranium there. Otherwise you would see likely release of radiation.
In my book, I go through this business of what Jim Kelly confronted the North Koreans with in 2002, and what the North Koreans said in response. There was no ambiguity in 2002 about the intelligence. In fact, what happened was that in the early summer 2002, for a change, all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program. That was what was significant. That after years of disagreement within the intelligence community, they had reached consensus. And there was no dispute at that time. Nor is there really dispute about the North Korean reaction to Kelly's trip, that they admitted they had a uranium enrichment program . It's not just my book. Read Jack Prichard's book, published by Brookings. He says there was no ambiguity, and he was there!
I think this is significant, because people are now trying to rewrite history, to help excuse why the North Koreans are not dissembling when they say they have no enrichment program. They are trying to lay the groundwork that there never was a program, so when the North Koreans say they don't have one it's not another example of dissembling.
NEWSMAX: Would their uranium enrichment program have come from Pakistan, or would they have had access earlier to the technology?
BOLTON: My guess is in part they had some technology from AQ Khan. But I think it was more of them acting as a general contractor building their own program, using AQ Khan for pieces of it, as opposed to Libya, who said to AQ Khan, you are the general contractor, you create the program for us.
NEWSMAX: It really astounds me the lack of information on the Iranian nuclear program, and the unwillingness of the Intelligence community to talk to Iranians, even to Iranian exiles.
BOLTON: Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness.
Not only has our human intelligence capability declined dramatically over the last several decades, there doesn't seem to be much inclination to want to build it back up.
Look at Joe Wilson: the best our intelligence community can do is send a former ambassador to Niger to have tea with officials that say, ' so, what's up on the uranium front?' That's our intelligence community? Forget everything else about Valerie Plame. That whole story is unbelievable!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
MKs to Prime Minister: Keep Jews in Hevron's Peace House
Hillel Fendel
Knesset Members of both the coalition and opposition have signed on a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, asking him to halt proceedings to evict Jews from their Hevron home. The MKs, fresh off a Wednesday session of the Knesset State Audit Committee on the topic of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) in Hevron, sent the letter on Thursday night. They wrote that in light of what they had learned from government representatives, the State Comptroller must be allowed to investigate the matter before legal proceedings are taken to evict the Jewish residents.
In March of this year, it was announced that the structure - an impressive 3,500 square-meter (roughly 3.5 million square feet), four-story building along the route between Kiryat Arba and the Jewish neighborhoods of Hevron - had been purchased for the Jewish Community of Hevron for about $700,000. Though the purchase papers have been meticulously reviewed and searched for any errors or forgeries, nothing has been found to invalidate the sale.
Despite this, the government is interested in throwing the residents out - based on an order given months ago by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz. A brake was put on these efforts on Thursday when a military committee turned down a Civil Administration request to throw them out.
The State Control Committee meeting was held at the request of another Knesset committee, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which dealt with this issue behind closed doors two weeks ago. In light of what the committee members felt were problematic details revealed at that meeting, they asked the State Control Committee to use its authority to request that the State Comptroller investigate the governmental administrative processes concerning Beit HaShalom.
Representatives of the police and State Prosecutor's office stated that the building was indeed purchased as the Jewish Community of Hevron maintained, and that the Arab who claims otherwise lied to the police and court. Asked why, then, the Prosecutor's office is demanding that the Jewish owners be thrown out, the MKs were told by the Civil Administration director and a Defense Ministry representative that they are simply following the orders of a "State Directive" issued by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
Illegitimate Political Behavior
The MKs therefore concluded that a political agenda is being implemented on an "operational level" and not on a "state level," rendering it illegitimate.
The MKs' letter to Olmert states, "During the committee session, we learned that the authorities have acted unfairly and inappropriately responding Peace House. Representatives of these authorities told us that their actions were the result of a political decision made by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and that in essence his orders continue even now to be the basis of very strange government behavior."
Signatories to the letter are coalition party MKs David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu), Otniel Shneller (Kadima), and Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), as well as opposition MKs Michael Eitan and Limor Livnat (Likud), and Yitzchak Levy, Aryeh Eldad and Uri Ariel (National Union). Two participating committee members, MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz) and Arab MK Taleb A-Sana, did not sign the letter.
Comptroller Must Review
The committee also voted, 6-2, to use its authority to ask State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss to prepare a report detailing the decision-making process regarding Peace House in Hevron.
"Those who object to a review by the Comptroller," said Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party), "raise the suspicion that they have something to hide. It appears that government authorities yield to various pressures and violate codes of conduct simply to promote a left-wing political agenda. A report by the Comptroller can clear the air and erase suspicions."
Knesset Members of both the coalition and opposition have signed on a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, asking him to halt proceedings to evict Jews from their Hevron home. The MKs, fresh off a Wednesday session of the Knesset State Audit Committee on the topic of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) in Hevron, sent the letter on Thursday night. They wrote that in light of what they had learned from government representatives, the State Comptroller must be allowed to investigate the matter before legal proceedings are taken to evict the Jewish residents.
In March of this year, it was announced that the structure - an impressive 3,500 square-meter (roughly 3.5 million square feet), four-story building along the route between Kiryat Arba and the Jewish neighborhoods of Hevron - had been purchased for the Jewish Community of Hevron for about $700,000. Though the purchase papers have been meticulously reviewed and searched for any errors or forgeries, nothing has been found to invalidate the sale.
Despite this, the government is interested in throwing the residents out - based on an order given months ago by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz. A brake was put on these efforts on Thursday when a military committee turned down a Civil Administration request to throw them out.
The State Control Committee meeting was held at the request of another Knesset committee, the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which dealt with this issue behind closed doors two weeks ago. In light of what the committee members felt were problematic details revealed at that meeting, they asked the State Control Committee to use its authority to request that the State Comptroller investigate the governmental administrative processes concerning Beit HaShalom.
Representatives of the police and State Prosecutor's office stated that the building was indeed purchased as the Jewish Community of Hevron maintained, and that the Arab who claims otherwise lied to the police and court. Asked why, then, the Prosecutor's office is demanding that the Jewish owners be thrown out, the MKs were told by the Civil Administration director and a Defense Ministry representative that they are simply following the orders of a "State Directive" issued by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
Illegitimate Political Behavior
The MKs therefore concluded that a political agenda is being implemented on an "operational level" and not on a "state level," rendering it illegitimate.
The MKs' letter to Olmert states, "During the committee session, we learned that the authorities have acted unfairly and inappropriately responding Peace House. Representatives of these authorities told us that their actions were the result of a political decision made by former Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and that in essence his orders continue even now to be the basis of very strange government behavior."
Signatories to the letter are coalition party MKs David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu), Otniel Shneller (Kadima), and Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), as well as opposition MKs Michael Eitan and Limor Livnat (Likud), and Yitzchak Levy, Aryeh Eldad and Uri Ariel (National Union). Two participating committee members, MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz) and Arab MK Taleb A-Sana, did not sign the letter.
Comptroller Must Review
The committee also voted, 6-2, to use its authority to ask State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss to prepare a report detailing the decision-making process regarding Peace House in Hevron.
"Those who object to a review by the Comptroller," said Committee Chairman Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party), "raise the suspicion that they have something to hide. It appears that government authorities yield to various pressures and violate codes of conduct simply to promote a left-wing political agenda. A report by the Comptroller can clear the air and erase suspicions."
HOW THE NEWS IS MADE
Barry Rubin
Ring, ring, goes the telephone. And of course I answer it.
The voice on the other end says that he is “Joseph” of Reuters. I get many calls from journalists and wire services but never has someone I don’t know introduced himself by first name only. Since he has an obvious Arabic accent it is quite clear that he thinks I am either so biased as to care what his family name is or so stupid not to guess why he isn’t giving it.
So the effect is to achieve the exact opposite of what he wants. It puts me on my guard.
Next he tells me that he is working on a story about how Israel is strangling the Palestinian economy. In such circumstances, I have taken to arguing back with correspondents. By framing the story that way, I explain, Reuters is building in a bias. After all, the story should be: What’s wrong with the Palestinian economy, how to fix it, and will the massive infusion of aid--$7.4 billion just promised for three years by mostly Western donors--help? Aren’t wire services, and the media in general, supposed to be somewhat balanced? They ask an open question, collect viewpoints, and let the reader conclude what the factors are, or at least wait until they have gathered some evidence. This is supposed to be especially true of wire services, which supply newspapers and other media with the basic facts on which they can build their own stories.
What is going on here, then, is not reporting but propaganda.
Clearly unnerved, he promises to quote me accurately. And he does keep that promise fully, sort of. But the outcome is quite predictable. And here is the dramatic headline of the resulting story: “Analysis-Aid can't save Palestinian economy in Israeli grip.”
No doubt is to be left that it is Israel’s fault that the Palestinian economy is in shambles. And so pervasive is this evil that even the whole world cannot save them. So after that $7.4 billion is all gone with no result everyone will know who to blame, right?
Before continuing let’s note the problem with this analysis on two levels. First, Israeli closures and control on movement are the result of Palestinian terrorist attacks, coupled with the unwillingness and inability of the two Palestinian governments (Palestinian Authority-Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip) to stop them. No attacks; no closures. And this is absolutely clear. If attacks were to stop, so would Israeli restrictions. But if Israel removed all roadblocks and closures, the attacks would continue. This makes obvious the principal, fundamental cause of the problem and what needs to change in order to fix it.
In other words: if Palestinian terrorism stops, Israeli restrictive measures will end and the Palestinian economy has a chance to develop.
But if Israeli restrictive measures end, Palestinian terrorism would continue and thus the Palestinian economy would not develop because Israel would put back on the restrictions eventually and also, of course, no one will invest in the middle of a war.
Is that clear and logical? Obviously, not so for Western leaders and much of the news media.
Second, even if all Israeli action were to disappear, the Palestinian economy would still be in trouble. There are a number of reasons for this which are all well-known and were vividly seen in the 1990s, at a time when there was massive aid and a low level of Israeli security operations. These factors include: huge corruption which siphons off money; the lack of a clear legal framework for investment and commerce; the incompetence of the Palestinian regime; internal anarchy and violence by gangs with political cover; and an ongoing war against Israel.
Naturally, if you pump $7.8 billion over three years into a society of under 1.5 million people on the West Bank—around $1,600 a year for every individual person there—it is going to have a positive economic effect. Since current Palestinian per capita income is $1,200 a year it would more than double it. In 1992, the figure was around $2,000. This represents, for all practical purposes, an increase of 400 percent over the aid being supplied two years ago.
But most of the money is merely budget support for the Palestinian Authority, meaning it will pay salaries for the bloated government bureaucracy. At the end of that time the funds will be gone with no effect.
Yet the December 20, 2007, story by Reuters and two similar articles by the Associated Press (for my detailed analysis of the latter see http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/2007/rubin/12_09.html) simply omit all this information and put all the blame for problems on Israel.
In this case, though, slanting is not enough, however, and the Reuters report must stoop to outright dishonesty. It states:
“The $7.4 billion pledged exceeds the sum [Palestinian Prime Minister Salam]] Fayyad had asked for in his three-year economic plan, but is less than the $8.4 billion that the World Bank reckons Israeli curbs on movement have cost Palestinians in lost income over the past five years.”
This is a lie and clearly a deliberate one. In fact, the World Bank annual reports are entitled “Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis.” They make the very simple point that the intifada—an armed Palestinian war on Israel—leads to closures and thus the combination brings on a crisis. The reports are quite careful in pointing out all the factors that led to the Palestinian economic decline. They do not say the losses were strictly due to Israeli curbs on movement. On the contrary, the 2003 report for example, written at the height of the violence, says the closures and movement restrictions are pretty insignificant. (see it at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/wbgaza-4yrassessment.pdf).
This specific example of dishonesty matters because the approach we see here—predetermining the story, ignoring most of the factors involved, blaming Israel--sets a pattern for a whole raft-full of stories:
--Why is there no peace? Israel doesn’t give enough concessions. Often there is no mention of Palestinian hardline positions, behavior in not keeping commitment, terrorism as a key element in the failure to achieve peace. Most important of all, there is endless talk about what Israel can or should give for peace but far less about what the Palestinians must give: end of conflict, full recognition of Israel, return of refugees to a Palestinian state, a real end to incitement and terrorism.
--Why is there suffering in Gaza? Israel’s restrictions. Far less mention of Hamas hard line, openly genocidal stance, constant aid to terrorist attacks and rocket firing, refusal to meet even minimal international requirements. Incidentally, the same article tells us—again only providing evidence on one side--that pressure on Hamas by sanctions is not working and thus should be ended.
--Why are Palestinians, to quote the Reuters story, “Deprived of dignity”? No mention of a corrupt government and gangs of gunmen who couldn’t care less about their well-being, and a strategy that starts unwinnable wars. Naturally, it is all Israel’s fault once again.
It is bad enough that this kind of coverage is shaping the way that many in the West see the Middle East. What is really horrible is that these articles are being deliberately written to do so.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Ring, ring, goes the telephone. And of course I answer it.
The voice on the other end says that he is “Joseph” of Reuters. I get many calls from journalists and wire services but never has someone I don’t know introduced himself by first name only. Since he has an obvious Arabic accent it is quite clear that he thinks I am either so biased as to care what his family name is or so stupid not to guess why he isn’t giving it.
So the effect is to achieve the exact opposite of what he wants. It puts me on my guard.
Next he tells me that he is working on a story about how Israel is strangling the Palestinian economy. In such circumstances, I have taken to arguing back with correspondents. By framing the story that way, I explain, Reuters is building in a bias. After all, the story should be: What’s wrong with the Palestinian economy, how to fix it, and will the massive infusion of aid--$7.4 billion just promised for three years by mostly Western donors--help? Aren’t wire services, and the media in general, supposed to be somewhat balanced? They ask an open question, collect viewpoints, and let the reader conclude what the factors are, or at least wait until they have gathered some evidence. This is supposed to be especially true of wire services, which supply newspapers and other media with the basic facts on which they can build their own stories.
What is going on here, then, is not reporting but propaganda.
Clearly unnerved, he promises to quote me accurately. And he does keep that promise fully, sort of. But the outcome is quite predictable. And here is the dramatic headline of the resulting story: “Analysis-Aid can't save Palestinian economy in Israeli grip.”
No doubt is to be left that it is Israel’s fault that the Palestinian economy is in shambles. And so pervasive is this evil that even the whole world cannot save them. So after that $7.4 billion is all gone with no result everyone will know who to blame, right?
Before continuing let’s note the problem with this analysis on two levels. First, Israeli closures and control on movement are the result of Palestinian terrorist attacks, coupled with the unwillingness and inability of the two Palestinian governments (Palestinian Authority-Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip) to stop them. No attacks; no closures. And this is absolutely clear. If attacks were to stop, so would Israeli restrictions. But if Israel removed all roadblocks and closures, the attacks would continue. This makes obvious the principal, fundamental cause of the problem and what needs to change in order to fix it.
In other words: if Palestinian terrorism stops, Israeli restrictive measures will end and the Palestinian economy has a chance to develop.
But if Israeli restrictive measures end, Palestinian terrorism would continue and thus the Palestinian economy would not develop because Israel would put back on the restrictions eventually and also, of course, no one will invest in the middle of a war.
Is that clear and logical? Obviously, not so for Western leaders and much of the news media.
Second, even if all Israeli action were to disappear, the Palestinian economy would still be in trouble. There are a number of reasons for this which are all well-known and were vividly seen in the 1990s, at a time when there was massive aid and a low level of Israeli security operations. These factors include: huge corruption which siphons off money; the lack of a clear legal framework for investment and commerce; the incompetence of the Palestinian regime; internal anarchy and violence by gangs with political cover; and an ongoing war against Israel.
Naturally, if you pump $7.8 billion over three years into a society of under 1.5 million people on the West Bank—around $1,600 a year for every individual person there—it is going to have a positive economic effect. Since current Palestinian per capita income is $1,200 a year it would more than double it. In 1992, the figure was around $2,000. This represents, for all practical purposes, an increase of 400 percent over the aid being supplied two years ago.
But most of the money is merely budget support for the Palestinian Authority, meaning it will pay salaries for the bloated government bureaucracy. At the end of that time the funds will be gone with no effect.
Yet the December 20, 2007, story by Reuters and two similar articles by the Associated Press (for my detailed analysis of the latter see http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/2007/rubin/12_09.html) simply omit all this information and put all the blame for problems on Israel.
In this case, though, slanting is not enough, however, and the Reuters report must stoop to outright dishonesty. It states:
“The $7.4 billion pledged exceeds the sum [Palestinian Prime Minister Salam]] Fayyad had asked for in his three-year economic plan, but is less than the $8.4 billion that the World Bank reckons Israeli curbs on movement have cost Palestinians in lost income over the past five years.”
This is a lie and clearly a deliberate one. In fact, the World Bank annual reports are entitled “Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis.” They make the very simple point that the intifada—an armed Palestinian war on Israel—leads to closures and thus the combination brings on a crisis. The reports are quite careful in pointing out all the factors that led to the Palestinian economic decline. They do not say the losses were strictly due to Israeli curbs on movement. On the contrary, the 2003 report for example, written at the height of the violence, says the closures and movement restrictions are pretty insignificant. (see it at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/wbgaza-4yrassessment.pdf).
This specific example of dishonesty matters because the approach we see here—predetermining the story, ignoring most of the factors involved, blaming Israel--sets a pattern for a whole raft-full of stories:
--Why is there no peace? Israel doesn’t give enough concessions. Often there is no mention of Palestinian hardline positions, behavior in not keeping commitment, terrorism as a key element in the failure to achieve peace. Most important of all, there is endless talk about what Israel can or should give for peace but far less about what the Palestinians must give: end of conflict, full recognition of Israel, return of refugees to a Palestinian state, a real end to incitement and terrorism.
--Why is there suffering in Gaza? Israel’s restrictions. Far less mention of Hamas hard line, openly genocidal stance, constant aid to terrorist attacks and rocket firing, refusal to meet even minimal international requirements. Incidentally, the same article tells us—again only providing evidence on one side--that pressure on Hamas by sanctions is not working and thus should be ended.
--Why are Palestinians, to quote the Reuters story, “Deprived of dignity”? No mention of a corrupt government and gangs of gunmen who couldn’t care less about their well-being, and a strategy that starts unwinnable wars. Naturally, it is all Israel’s fault once again.
It is bad enough that this kind of coverage is shaping the way that many in the West see the Middle East. What is really horrible is that these articles are being deliberately written to do so.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Saudis Hate Jews and Christians
The always interesting Tom Gross reports on a rare poll of Saudi citizens.
The opinion of the Saudi public will not surprise anyone who has read Dore Gold's Hatred's Kingdom but it is helpful to have such a quantitative record of Saudi attitudes.Here are some highlights:
In answer to the question, "I would favor a peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel, if an independent Palestinian State is established?"
29.6% said yes
While 51.3% said they opposed any peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel.
Jews are viewed as very unfavorably by 81.7%
While Christians are viewed very unfavorably by 40.3% and somewhat unfavorably by 14.0%.
What is most disconcerting about the results of this poll is that Condi Rice thinks the Saudis are partners for peace with Israel. These are the same dictators who would not shake hands with Israelis at the Annapolis Conference.
The opinion of the Saudi public will not surprise anyone who has read Dore Gold's Hatred's Kingdom but it is helpful to have such a quantitative record of Saudi attitudes.Here are some highlights:
In answer to the question, "I would favor a peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel, if an independent Palestinian State is established?"
29.6% said yes
While 51.3% said they opposed any peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel.
Jews are viewed as very unfavorably by 81.7%
While Christians are viewed very unfavorably by 40.3% and somewhat unfavorably by 14.0%.
What is most disconcerting about the results of this poll is that Condi Rice thinks the Saudis are partners for peace with Israel. These are the same dictators who would not shake hands with Israelis at the Annapolis Conference.
Palestinians Are Commited To Eliminating Israel
While Condi Rice is pursuing a fools path as she invests the prestige of the United States and convinces the Europeans that the idea of a Palestinian Sate and an Israeli State is alive and well, the Palestinians have clearly moved away from that outdated model and are dedicated to replacing the Jewish State with one of their own Powerline is reporting on information gathered by our friend Dan Diker of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs which confirms the above proposition. In short, Abbas is going through the motions that nothing has changed because he wants to collect the $8 billion in aid pledged by foreign powers.
Diker's conclusions make sense when one remembers the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish State, the refusal of the Saudis to shake hands with the Israelis, and the refusal to drop the so-called right of return demand.
Furthermore, Abbas has demonstrated time and again that he can not deliver on anything.
It is important for United States policymakers to understand this change in events. Israel, not a Palestinian State, is the prize the Palestinians want.
The Annapolis Conference failed to produce anything of substance because Abbas had nothing to offer and a severely weakened Olmert could not deliver anything in Israel.
The question of the day is what is Bush going to do on his trip to the region? He is dealing with two leaders who can not dictate change in their communities. In other words they may agree to Bush's demands but they don't have the power to deliver their people. Bush is being set up for a big embarrassment.
This is not good for the United States or Israel. A weakened America is bad for the world.
Diker's conclusions make sense when one remembers the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish State, the refusal of the Saudis to shake hands with the Israelis, and the refusal to drop the so-called right of return demand.
Furthermore, Abbas has demonstrated time and again that he can not deliver on anything.
It is important for United States policymakers to understand this change in events. Israel, not a Palestinian State, is the prize the Palestinians want.
The Annapolis Conference failed to produce anything of substance because Abbas had nothing to offer and a severely weakened Olmert could not deliver anything in Israel.
The question of the day is what is Bush going to do on his trip to the region? He is dealing with two leaders who can not dictate change in their communities. In other words they may agree to Bush's demands but they don't have the power to deliver their people. Bush is being set up for a big embarrassment.
This is not good for the United States or Israel. A weakened America is bad for the world.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Bills Came Due in 2007
Victor Davis Hanson
2007 reminded us that our easy way of life comes at a price, and that there are consequences and tradeoffs in almost everything we do. Let’s go down the list. Illegal Immigration
President Bush’s comprehensive immigration bill collapsed this summer, following public outrage from the middle and poorer classes of both parties. These Americans reminded their politicians that first they want their southern border closed to illegal immigration -- and discussion of anything else second.
They are not racists, nativists or protectionists -- much less “anti-immigrant.” Instead, a substantial number of Americans -- from all backgrounds -- simply believe that once illegal immigration ceases, the problem becomes manageable.
Employers will have to hire our own poor and unemployed, and thus raise wages. Mexico will have to deal with its own problems rather than blaming the United States. Tribalists and ethnic provocateurs will have to relearn that integration and the melting pot are not going away. And immigrants crossing the southern border will have to wait in line like everyone else and come here legally.
The Housing Crisis
Housing prices tanked in 2007. Millions of home mortgages by this past spring were behind or in default. The media rushed to blame government and lenders -- as if poor buyers had a gun to their heads when they bet that housing would continually appreciate.
Yet most Americans who buy homes judiciously, and pay their mortgages promptly, were probably more philosophical than outraged. Homes had become way overpriced. Anyone who rushed out to borrow heavily to buy in such an overheated market was intent on recklessly profiting by quick resale -- or hopelessly naive.
Food Is Not Cheap
Farm prices soared. For 40 years, Americans had become used to the idea that their food would stay cheap, and that farmers were invisible or irrelevant. Now we are learning that farmland and irrigation water are finite resources, while world population continues to rise. Before we can solve global warming, convert to ethanol fuels or restore ancestral rivers, we first have to eat -- and thus make sure there is enough land and water to produce food.
Oil
Oil reached $98 a barrel by November. Conservatives thought that the market alone might easily correct the problem. Yet they are starting to see in the meantime that petrol-rich, anti-American dictatorships, flush with American cash, won’t be so patient with us.
Liberals tend to claim that we won’t have to find and burn far more of our own oil and coal, or build nuclear plants. But they are learning that for now that would only make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and the House of Saud even happier.
Iran
The recent National Intelligence Estimate told us that Iran ceased efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in 2003. The news was as unexpected as it was widely distrusted. What’s clear, at least for now, are the effects of the report: Hawks’ ideas of preemptively bombing Iran are fortunately off the table. But, unfortunately, so are serious economic and diplomatic efforts to persuade the Iranians to stop. This flawed report will come back to haunt us.
Iraq
In recent months, we’ve seen a reduction of violence in Iraq as Sunni tribal insurgents joined American troops in hunting down al-Qaida terrorists. These insurgents’ turnabout may have been influenced by the U.S. troop surge, a change in the American military’s tactics, worry over the Shiite-dominated government, confidence in an oil-fed prosperity or a growing awareness of the savage nihilism of al-Qaida.
The fact that the insurgents approached us for help after being defeated or demoralized suggests that the present truce could evolve into a peace in ways no one had foreseen.
Anti-War and Over-the-Top
After Moveon.org ran its infamous “General Betray Us” ad -- in The New York Times no less and originally at a reduced rate -- the entire vocal anti-war movement never quite recovered. Before the ad, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and Michael Moore were all seen as just vehemently anti-war. After the lunatic ad, all such critics were suspected, unfairly or not, of being anti-military and potentially undermining the thousands of Americans who serve in it.
Hollywood
The American people go to the movies to be entertained and occasionally enlightened. They do not pay to be lectured to, brainwashed or made to feel ashamed of their own country and military. Brian De Palma’s movie “Redacted” did all three and came and went from theaters faster than you could say “agitprop.”
“Lions for Lambs,” “Rendition” and “In the Valley of Elah” did little better. The fates of these films should remind those in Hollywood that when we want to be preached at, we prefer church.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."
2007 reminded us that our easy way of life comes at a price, and that there are consequences and tradeoffs in almost everything we do. Let’s go down the list. Illegal Immigration
President Bush’s comprehensive immigration bill collapsed this summer, following public outrage from the middle and poorer classes of both parties. These Americans reminded their politicians that first they want their southern border closed to illegal immigration -- and discussion of anything else second.
They are not racists, nativists or protectionists -- much less “anti-immigrant.” Instead, a substantial number of Americans -- from all backgrounds -- simply believe that once illegal immigration ceases, the problem becomes manageable.
Employers will have to hire our own poor and unemployed, and thus raise wages. Mexico will have to deal with its own problems rather than blaming the United States. Tribalists and ethnic provocateurs will have to relearn that integration and the melting pot are not going away. And immigrants crossing the southern border will have to wait in line like everyone else and come here legally.
The Housing Crisis
Housing prices tanked in 2007. Millions of home mortgages by this past spring were behind or in default. The media rushed to blame government and lenders -- as if poor buyers had a gun to their heads when they bet that housing would continually appreciate.
Yet most Americans who buy homes judiciously, and pay their mortgages promptly, were probably more philosophical than outraged. Homes had become way overpriced. Anyone who rushed out to borrow heavily to buy in such an overheated market was intent on recklessly profiting by quick resale -- or hopelessly naive.
Food Is Not Cheap
Farm prices soared. For 40 years, Americans had become used to the idea that their food would stay cheap, and that farmers were invisible or irrelevant. Now we are learning that farmland and irrigation water are finite resources, while world population continues to rise. Before we can solve global warming, convert to ethanol fuels or restore ancestral rivers, we first have to eat -- and thus make sure there is enough land and water to produce food.
Oil
Oil reached $98 a barrel by November. Conservatives thought that the market alone might easily correct the problem. Yet they are starting to see in the meantime that petrol-rich, anti-American dictatorships, flush with American cash, won’t be so patient with us.
Liberals tend to claim that we won’t have to find and burn far more of our own oil and coal, or build nuclear plants. But they are learning that for now that would only make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and the House of Saud even happier.
Iran
The recent National Intelligence Estimate told us that Iran ceased efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in 2003. The news was as unexpected as it was widely distrusted. What’s clear, at least for now, are the effects of the report: Hawks’ ideas of preemptively bombing Iran are fortunately off the table. But, unfortunately, so are serious economic and diplomatic efforts to persuade the Iranians to stop. This flawed report will come back to haunt us.
Iraq
In recent months, we’ve seen a reduction of violence in Iraq as Sunni tribal insurgents joined American troops in hunting down al-Qaida terrorists. These insurgents’ turnabout may have been influenced by the U.S. troop surge, a change in the American military’s tactics, worry over the Shiite-dominated government, confidence in an oil-fed prosperity or a growing awareness of the savage nihilism of al-Qaida.
The fact that the insurgents approached us for help after being defeated or demoralized suggests that the present truce could evolve into a peace in ways no one had foreseen.
Anti-War and Over-the-Top
After Moveon.org ran its infamous “General Betray Us” ad -- in The New York Times no less and originally at a reduced rate -- the entire vocal anti-war movement never quite recovered. Before the ad, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and Michael Moore were all seen as just vehemently anti-war. After the lunatic ad, all such critics were suspected, unfairly or not, of being anti-military and potentially undermining the thousands of Americans who serve in it.
Hollywood
The American people go to the movies to be entertained and occasionally enlightened. They do not pay to be lectured to, brainwashed or made to feel ashamed of their own country and military. Brian De Palma’s movie “Redacted” did all three and came and went from theaters faster than you could say “agitprop.”
“Lions for Lambs,” “Rendition” and “In the Valley of Elah” did little better. The fates of these films should remind those in Hollywood that when we want to be preached at, we prefer church.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."
"I implore you"… Israel wants "to be raped"
Isi Leibler
December 27, 2007
In the course of a visit to Israel by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, approximately 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders were invited by the American Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, to a dinner at his private residence to receive a confidential briefing from the Secretary of State. The event took place on September 10.
A bizarre exchange took place at this gathering between one of the participants and the Secretary of State. It was initially broadcast on Israel TV Channel 2 by Ehud Yaari, one of Israel's most highly respected commentators, who had not attended the dinner but had verified the details with colleagues who were present. The public did not appreciate the seriousness of the incident because Yaari failed to disclose that the person involved was none other than Haaretz editor David Landau.
I have independently verified details of what transpired and in response to questioning by Yaari and in an interview with Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of the New York Jewish Week, Landau himself confirmed the veracity of the events outlined below. (see Haaretz editor urged Rice to 'Rape' Israel)
Following the briefing, Mr. Landau, who was seated adjacent to the Secretary of State, turned to Secretary Rice, and as he said to the Jewish Week, "I told [Rice] that it had always been my wet dream to address the Secretary of State" on how to act in relation to Israel.
Landau opened his remarks by referring to Israel as a "failed state" politically. He said that the only way Israel could be saved would be if the United States were to impose a settlement. Landau told Rice "I implore you" to intervene and added that the Government of Israel wanted "to be raped".
Condoleezza Rice responded that whilst she appreciated the dilemmas facing Israel, the United States would never impose its views on the Jewish state in such a manner. Landau told the Jewish Week that the Secretary of State was completely unfazed by his remarks.
For the US Secretary of State to partake in such an exchange with the editor of a major Israeli newspaper is mind boggling. Whilst Ms. Rice rejected Landau's entreaties for the United States to force Israel to act in what he perceived to be Israel's best interest, there is little doubt that his remarks would have subsequently been widely aired in US State Department circles.
Anyone familiar with Israel's diplomatic history will be aware that the worst fear of government after government was the prospect of the United States alone or in conjunction with another power, seeking to impose a settlement which would be to Israel's political detriment or compromise its vital security interests.
By any benchmark, Landau's behavior as an Israeli citizen would be deemed unacceptable. But it is surely unconscionable that the editor of one of Israel's most influential newspapers, which also appears in an English and global internet version, could urge an American Secretary of State to "rape" his own government. If ever there was a crossing of every red line in terms of propriety, national integrity, and civic responsibility, this extraordinary intervention tops the bill. This is surely not behaviour befitting the editor of a major newspaper. Could one possibly visualize the head of a major European media outlet behaving in such a manner in relation to his country?
What is even more outrageous is that far from displaying remorse at his behaviour, Landau told the Jewish Week that "he had no regrets and that, on the contrary he was pleased, adding that he was later congratulated by several professors in the room who felt 'I articulated what many Israelis feel'."
On November 6, I wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post sharply condemning Landau for what I considered to be a basic violation of the Israeli Press Council's code of ethics (see Shame on Haaretz).
I related specifically to statements in which Mr. Landau had boasted that in order to promote the so called "peace agenda", he had deliberately exploited his editorial authority to "soft pedal" acts of corruption by senior political leaders including Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Olmert. Landau had also reiterated that he intended pursuing the same course of action in the future.
I also noted that Mr. Landau had instructed his staff not to respond to requests for corrections of demonstrable falsehoods published in his paper, if the source of the complaint was CAMERA, the American Jewish media watchdog organization that footnotes all its criticisms. Mr. Landau justified this on the grounds that CAMERA was a "McCarthyite" organization.
Although the Israel Press Council intervention on such issues is rare, I understand that it is investigating these apparent breaches of their code of ethics.
However this latest incident goes far beyond journalistic ethics. It involves a profound moral issue which touches upon the core of our dignity and self respect as a nation and cannot simply be dismissed as another example of post Zionism or infantile radicalism. Whereas left and right wing groups, to their discredit, have previously appealed to international public opinion to support their views against the policies of particular governments, there is a quantum leap from such action to a senior Israeli media personality appealing for intervention directly to a Secretary of State.
Of course, Landau is entitled to his personal opinions. But it is surely a staggering act of reckless arrogance and a reflection of utter contempt for the democratic process when the editor of Haaretz newspaper at such a venue to have passionately conveyed such views to the American Secretary of State at this most sensitive diplomatic juncture. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Israelis across the entire political spectrum would condemn his action as irresponsible and immoral.
Mr. Landau should apologize or resign.
December 27, 2007
In the course of a visit to Israel by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, approximately 20 heads of the most senior Israeli think tanks and media leaders were invited by the American Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, to a dinner at his private residence to receive a confidential briefing from the Secretary of State. The event took place on September 10.
A bizarre exchange took place at this gathering between one of the participants and the Secretary of State. It was initially broadcast on Israel TV Channel 2 by Ehud Yaari, one of Israel's most highly respected commentators, who had not attended the dinner but had verified the details with colleagues who were present. The public did not appreciate the seriousness of the incident because Yaari failed to disclose that the person involved was none other than Haaretz editor David Landau.
I have independently verified details of what transpired and in response to questioning by Yaari and in an interview with Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of the New York Jewish Week, Landau himself confirmed the veracity of the events outlined below. (see Haaretz editor urged Rice to 'Rape' Israel)
Following the briefing, Mr. Landau, who was seated adjacent to the Secretary of State, turned to Secretary Rice, and as he said to the Jewish Week, "I told [Rice] that it had always been my wet dream to address the Secretary of State" on how to act in relation to Israel.
Landau opened his remarks by referring to Israel as a "failed state" politically. He said that the only way Israel could be saved would be if the United States were to impose a settlement. Landau told Rice "I implore you" to intervene and added that the Government of Israel wanted "to be raped".
Condoleezza Rice responded that whilst she appreciated the dilemmas facing Israel, the United States would never impose its views on the Jewish state in such a manner. Landau told the Jewish Week that the Secretary of State was completely unfazed by his remarks.
For the US Secretary of State to partake in such an exchange with the editor of a major Israeli newspaper is mind boggling. Whilst Ms. Rice rejected Landau's entreaties for the United States to force Israel to act in what he perceived to be Israel's best interest, there is little doubt that his remarks would have subsequently been widely aired in US State Department circles.
Anyone familiar with Israel's diplomatic history will be aware that the worst fear of government after government was the prospect of the United States alone or in conjunction with another power, seeking to impose a settlement which would be to Israel's political detriment or compromise its vital security interests.
By any benchmark, Landau's behavior as an Israeli citizen would be deemed unacceptable. But it is surely unconscionable that the editor of one of Israel's most influential newspapers, which also appears in an English and global internet version, could urge an American Secretary of State to "rape" his own government. If ever there was a crossing of every red line in terms of propriety, national integrity, and civic responsibility, this extraordinary intervention tops the bill. This is surely not behaviour befitting the editor of a major newspaper. Could one possibly visualize the head of a major European media outlet behaving in such a manner in relation to his country?
What is even more outrageous is that far from displaying remorse at his behaviour, Landau told the Jewish Week that "he had no regrets and that, on the contrary he was pleased, adding that he was later congratulated by several professors in the room who felt 'I articulated what many Israelis feel'."
On November 6, I wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post sharply condemning Landau for what I considered to be a basic violation of the Israeli Press Council's code of ethics (see Shame on Haaretz).
I related specifically to statements in which Mr. Landau had boasted that in order to promote the so called "peace agenda", he had deliberately exploited his editorial authority to "soft pedal" acts of corruption by senior political leaders including Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Olmert. Landau had also reiterated that he intended pursuing the same course of action in the future.
I also noted that Mr. Landau had instructed his staff not to respond to requests for corrections of demonstrable falsehoods published in his paper, if the source of the complaint was CAMERA, the American Jewish media watchdog organization that footnotes all its criticisms. Mr. Landau justified this on the grounds that CAMERA was a "McCarthyite" organization.
Although the Israel Press Council intervention on such issues is rare, I understand that it is investigating these apparent breaches of their code of ethics.
However this latest incident goes far beyond journalistic ethics. It involves a profound moral issue which touches upon the core of our dignity and self respect as a nation and cannot simply be dismissed as another example of post Zionism or infantile radicalism. Whereas left and right wing groups, to their discredit, have previously appealed to international public opinion to support their views against the policies of particular governments, there is a quantum leap from such action to a senior Israeli media personality appealing for intervention directly to a Secretary of State.
Of course, Landau is entitled to his personal opinions. But it is surely a staggering act of reckless arrogance and a reflection of utter contempt for the democratic process when the editor of Haaretz newspaper at such a venue to have passionately conveyed such views to the American Secretary of State at this most sensitive diplomatic juncture. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Israelis across the entire political spectrum would condemn his action as irresponsible and immoral.
Mr. Landau should apologize or resign.
The Bush Metamorphosis
Jerusalem -- Both during and long after his January 9th first visit to Israel since taking up residence in theWhite House, President Bush must be made to realize that the dimensions of Israel’s pre-1967 midsection that so shocked Governor Bush are precisely those to which Israel would be forced to revert under the “peace process” launched at Annapolis. Governor Bush had no trouble assessing the existential threat such a reversion would pose for the Jewish state. Describing the impact of that helicopter tour he took in the company of then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, Ron Suskind in his book, The Price of Loyalty, quotes the Texas governor as saying “ It looks real bad down there. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation.” With the memory of what he saw still fresh, the newly minted President Bush, in his first meeting with his National Security Council on January 30, 2001 asserted (according to notes taken by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill) that “we’re going to tilt back toward Israel.” O’Neill reports Secretary of State Colin Powell responding that it would be dangerous if Sharon and the IDF were given a free hand. To which Bush is quoted as having retorted: “Maybe that’s the best way to get things back in balance. Sometimes a show of force can really clarify things.”
More than a drawl
With a lot more of Texas still in him that just a drawl, Bush wasn’t above “clarifying things,” including telling the pro-Arab State Department where to get off. This was a George W. Bush still determined to make good on his campaign pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a president who elected to surround himself with pro-Israel neocons like Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, a defense secretary who routinely referred to Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the “so-called occupied territories” and a vice president who thought Arafat “should be killed.”
George Bush, circa January 2008, bears little resemblance to the original product. The brain trust that esteemed the added value a strong, defensible Israel brought to America’s valiant struggle against radical Islam is long gone, replaced by the likes of Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose skewed perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict has cast a lengthening shadow over White House policy-making. Viewed as a sounding board for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Haas, who formerly headed State’s Division of Policy Planning, expressed his displeasure with what he deemed the too general and congenial nature of the president’s speech at Annapolis. “Bush’s speech,” he averred, “failed to give Mahmoud Abbas an argument he could take back to the Palestinian people and say ‘this is why negotiations offer the more promising route and this is why you should not put your hope in violence.’” “More promising?” Under what circumstances does Mr. Haas suggest the United States should regard terrorist violence in any degree against a democratic friend and ally as “promising?”
Total freeze
Haas’s three-step formula for kick-starting the post-Annapolis “process” includes the halting of all further Israeli settlement beyond the 1949 Armistice lines; the removal of all Israeli roadblocks in Judea and Samaria, and a reconstituted Palestinian Authority security force (presumably incorporating under its expanded umbrella the gunmen of Fatah, Tanzim and the Martyrs Brigades). His anti-Jewish settlement plank found special resonance with Saeb Erekat, the PA’s star negotiator and emissary to the Western media. “We demand a freeze on all settlement activity,” said man who told the world at Annapolis that the words “Jewish state” would never issue from his lips. And a “freeze,” he added, must include not only new settlement construction but construction in existing settlements. “Either it’s a 100 percent settlement freeze,” he barked, “or no settlement freeze. There is nothing in the middle.” To which Mr. Haas added: “The Arab world and the Palestinians will be willing to work with us and accept our role if we act credibly,” i.e, serve them Israel’s head at the next Ramadan festival.
President Bush’s response to all this has been pathetic. “I’ll make sure, as will the secretary of state, that when they get stuck, we’ll help them get unstuck,” was the most profound thing he had to say at the conclusion of the Annapolis conclave. Condoleezza Rice has not nearly been as reticent. The President, she has made clear, wasn’t coming to Israel for another helicopter ride, but to “signal support for the bilateral process between the parties and to continue, in a hands-on way, to encourage them to move forward.” Anybody vaguely familiar with the context and syntax of Middle Eastern “peace” negotiations over the last 40 years knows that “hands-on” and “move forward” are code words describing pressure on Israel for unilateral concessions. Secretary Rice abandoned the code words for blunter language a bit further on in noting that Bush’s January trip would include other stops in the region aimed at rallying broader Arab backing for the Annapolis initiative, “The Palestinians can’t make these tough choices without Arab support,” she asserted.
Har Homa lecture
Did Madam Rice mean to imply that the PA’s acceptance of Israel’s surrender of 95 percent of Judea and Samaria plus eastern Jerusalem amounted to a “tough choice,” moreover one that required broad “Arab support?” Or was the secretary tiptoeing, ever so delicately, around the possibility that the Olmert government, for all its fecklessness, might, in return for this outrageous act, demand of Mahmoud Abbas the public recognition of Israel as a Jewish state? Indeed, it may have been in an attempt to make that bitter pill more palatable that she lashed out at Israel’s refusal to veto the construction of additional sorely needed apartments in Har Homa, a neighborhood plainly within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries. Treating that simple fact as though it were a non sequitur, she went off on a tangent about the “obligation to be very careful about activities that undermine confidence. This is a time to build confidence between the parties,” she declared, “and something like the Har Homa activity undermines confidence.”
If the addition of an apartment block in a demarcated and developed neighborhood in Jerusalem “undermines confidence” in the “process,” what might be said of a soon to be unveiled poster marking the 43rd anniversary of Fatah, a wholly owned terrorist subsidiary of the PA. Already on view at several Fatah-affiliated web sites, it features a map of Israel draped in a Palestinian keffiah, with Arafat’s picture supporting an automatic rifle symbolizing the continued “armed struggle” against the “Zionist entity.”
Secretary Rice, at this writing, has yet to utter a word of condemnation of this belligerent affront by an organ of a Palestinian Authority ostensibly committed to an independent “Palestine” alongside, not in place of, Israel. It may be that she simply regards the “undermining of confidence” in the “process” an exclusive Israeli preserve. Perhaps the former governor of Texas would be good enough to shed some “hands-on” light on the subject before he leaves here.
*Bill Mehlman represents Americans For A Safe Israel in Israel and is co-editor of the Jerusalem-based internet magazine ZionNet (www.zionnet.net)
More than a drawl
With a lot more of Texas still in him that just a drawl, Bush wasn’t above “clarifying things,” including telling the pro-Arab State Department where to get off. This was a George W. Bush still determined to make good on his campaign pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a president who elected to surround himself with pro-Israel neocons like Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, a defense secretary who routinely referred to Judea, Samaria and Gaza as the “so-called occupied territories” and a vice president who thought Arafat “should be killed.”
George Bush, circa January 2008, bears little resemblance to the original product. The brain trust that esteemed the added value a strong, defensible Israel brought to America’s valiant struggle against radical Islam is long gone, replaced by the likes of Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose skewed perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict has cast a lengthening shadow over White House policy-making. Viewed as a sounding board for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Haas, who formerly headed State’s Division of Policy Planning, expressed his displeasure with what he deemed the too general and congenial nature of the president’s speech at Annapolis. “Bush’s speech,” he averred, “failed to give Mahmoud Abbas an argument he could take back to the Palestinian people and say ‘this is why negotiations offer the more promising route and this is why you should not put your hope in violence.’” “More promising?” Under what circumstances does Mr. Haas suggest the United States should regard terrorist violence in any degree against a democratic friend and ally as “promising?”
Total freeze
Haas’s three-step formula for kick-starting the post-Annapolis “process” includes the halting of all further Israeli settlement beyond the 1949 Armistice lines; the removal of all Israeli roadblocks in Judea and Samaria, and a reconstituted Palestinian Authority security force (presumably incorporating under its expanded umbrella the gunmen of Fatah, Tanzim and the Martyrs Brigades). His anti-Jewish settlement plank found special resonance with Saeb Erekat, the PA’s star negotiator and emissary to the Western media. “We demand a freeze on all settlement activity,” said man who told the world at Annapolis that the words “Jewish state” would never issue from his lips. And a “freeze,” he added, must include not only new settlement construction but construction in existing settlements. “Either it’s a 100 percent settlement freeze,” he barked, “or no settlement freeze. There is nothing in the middle.” To which Mr. Haas added: “The Arab world and the Palestinians will be willing to work with us and accept our role if we act credibly,” i.e, serve them Israel’s head at the next Ramadan festival.
President Bush’s response to all this has been pathetic. “I’ll make sure, as will the secretary of state, that when they get stuck, we’ll help them get unstuck,” was the most profound thing he had to say at the conclusion of the Annapolis conclave. Condoleezza Rice has not nearly been as reticent. The President, she has made clear, wasn’t coming to Israel for another helicopter ride, but to “signal support for the bilateral process between the parties and to continue, in a hands-on way, to encourage them to move forward.” Anybody vaguely familiar with the context and syntax of Middle Eastern “peace” negotiations over the last 40 years knows that “hands-on” and “move forward” are code words describing pressure on Israel for unilateral concessions. Secretary Rice abandoned the code words for blunter language a bit further on in noting that Bush’s January trip would include other stops in the region aimed at rallying broader Arab backing for the Annapolis initiative, “The Palestinians can’t make these tough choices without Arab support,” she asserted.
Har Homa lecture
Did Madam Rice mean to imply that the PA’s acceptance of Israel’s surrender of 95 percent of Judea and Samaria plus eastern Jerusalem amounted to a “tough choice,” moreover one that required broad “Arab support?” Or was the secretary tiptoeing, ever so delicately, around the possibility that the Olmert government, for all its fecklessness, might, in return for this outrageous act, demand of Mahmoud Abbas the public recognition of Israel as a Jewish state? Indeed, it may have been in an attempt to make that bitter pill more palatable that she lashed out at Israel’s refusal to veto the construction of additional sorely needed apartments in Har Homa, a neighborhood plainly within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries. Treating that simple fact as though it were a non sequitur, she went off on a tangent about the “obligation to be very careful about activities that undermine confidence. This is a time to build confidence between the parties,” she declared, “and something like the Har Homa activity undermines confidence.”
If the addition of an apartment block in a demarcated and developed neighborhood in Jerusalem “undermines confidence” in the “process,” what might be said of a soon to be unveiled poster marking the 43rd anniversary of Fatah, a wholly owned terrorist subsidiary of the PA. Already on view at several Fatah-affiliated web sites, it features a map of Israel draped in a Palestinian keffiah, with Arafat’s picture supporting an automatic rifle symbolizing the continued “armed struggle” against the “Zionist entity.”
Secretary Rice, at this writing, has yet to utter a word of condemnation of this belligerent affront by an organ of a Palestinian Authority ostensibly committed to an independent “Palestine” alongside, not in place of, Israel. It may be that she simply regards the “undermining of confidence” in the “process” an exclusive Israeli preserve. Perhaps the former governor of Texas would be good enough to shed some “hands-on” light on the subject before he leaves here.
*Bill Mehlman represents Americans For A Safe Israel in Israel and is co-editor of the Jerusalem-based internet magazine ZionNet (www.zionnet.net)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Kfar Shalem: Gov't Erred in 1948, Residents Pay Price Today
Hillel Fendel
A 43-year-old legal struggle is now one step away from its end after police and Border Guard forces evicted some 30 people from the Kfar Shalem neighborhood in Tel Aviv. Another 30 people still remain on what was once a 56-dunam (14-acre) disputed area. A recent Supreme Court decision turning down the residents' final appeal paved the way for the police to evict them from their homes on the privately-owned land. The police arrived in force early this morning (Tuesday), expecting violent opposition - but their fears were largely not actualized. Three protestors were arrested, but no major violence; the residents' belongings were uneventfully loaded onto trucks - eyewitnesses at the site did not know where these trucks would be headed - and the buildings were gradually demolished, one by one.
The story began in 1948, when the newly-established State of Israel settled Jews from Yemen on the lands of what had been the hostile Arab village of Salama; Israeli forces had conquered the area in order to stop Arab sniper fire at the Jewish neighborhoods of Yad Eliyahu, Ezra and HaTikvah. The new Jewish neighborhood was named Kfar Shalem.
In 1965, the government passed a law stipulating relocation and compensation for the families, but it took years - and the killing by police of a resident during an attempted forced eviction in 1982 - before implementation of the law began. In the early 90's, it was learned that part of the land was actually privately-owned by a British citizen, meaning that the government's allocation of it to the new immigrants had been in error. Many of the families in Kfar Shalem were generously compensated by the State at that time when they were relocated to another area, but their neighbors living next-door were left out of the arrangement because their homes were on privately-owned parcels.
The legal situation became more entangled when a woman named Ruma Efrati purchased the land - at a discount, because of the fact that the land was occupied - and began to make plans to build a large housing complex there. After years of legal delays, the Supreme Court recently ruled that she may exercise her right to have the residents removed, regardless of whether the sides reach an agreement regarding compensation.
A Haaretz report of this past summer quotes Dr. Sandy Kedar, a lawyer who teaches at Haifa University, saying that though the eviction may be on solid ground in terms of dry law, "If you look at what is happening in Kfar Shalem and compare it, for example, to Kibbutz Galil Yam, then it can be argued that this is a discriminatory policy verging on illegality." The reference is to a decision by the government earlier this year enabling residents of state-owned kibbutz land to sell the land for an enormous profit - while those of Kfar Shalem are given nothing.
Resident Speaks With Arutz-7
Dudi Balasi, whose family arrived from Yemen 60 years ago and was settled in Kfar Shalem, told Arutz-7 that the entire affair is a scandal involving an "evil alliance" of government (specifically, the Tel Aviv Municipality) and real estate business interests operating at the expense of citizens who fell victim to a government mistake for which no one wishes to take responsibility. "Even more than that," he said. "I have been paying rent to the Amidar government housing agency for many years - even though in 2002, this very property that I have been paying for was sold to Mrs. Efrati. So why did they take money from me?"
Asked if Amidar had offered to return his rent money, Balasi said, "Who wants rent? What we demand is alternate housing, period."
Balasi said that his father's brother's daughter had been one of the famous Yemenite Children who disappeared in the early 50's: "My uncle brought her to the hospital one day, and was suddenly told that she had died..."
Asked where he would now live, Balasi said, "The bulldozers only destroyed part of our house, because it was built precisely on a line dividing up the various parcels of land. So we're left with two small rooms, and I'm waiting for a tent to arrive."
The City's Response
A staffer at the Tel Aviv Municipality Spokesman's office told Arutz-7 that it had no statement to make, as it it not a party to the dispute. Asked if the municipality would aid the displaced residents, she said, "Those who need help will receive it; representatives of our social welfare department were at the site today.".
A 43-year-old legal struggle is now one step away from its end after police and Border Guard forces evicted some 30 people from the Kfar Shalem neighborhood in Tel Aviv. Another 30 people still remain on what was once a 56-dunam (14-acre) disputed area. A recent Supreme Court decision turning down the residents' final appeal paved the way for the police to evict them from their homes on the privately-owned land. The police arrived in force early this morning (Tuesday), expecting violent opposition - but their fears were largely not actualized. Three protestors were arrested, but no major violence; the residents' belongings were uneventfully loaded onto trucks - eyewitnesses at the site did not know where these trucks would be headed - and the buildings were gradually demolished, one by one.
The story began in 1948, when the newly-established State of Israel settled Jews from Yemen on the lands of what had been the hostile Arab village of Salama; Israeli forces had conquered the area in order to stop Arab sniper fire at the Jewish neighborhoods of Yad Eliyahu, Ezra and HaTikvah. The new Jewish neighborhood was named Kfar Shalem.
In 1965, the government passed a law stipulating relocation and compensation for the families, but it took years - and the killing by police of a resident during an attempted forced eviction in 1982 - before implementation of the law began. In the early 90's, it was learned that part of the land was actually privately-owned by a British citizen, meaning that the government's allocation of it to the new immigrants had been in error. Many of the families in Kfar Shalem were generously compensated by the State at that time when they were relocated to another area, but their neighbors living next-door were left out of the arrangement because their homes were on privately-owned parcels.
The legal situation became more entangled when a woman named Ruma Efrati purchased the land - at a discount, because of the fact that the land was occupied - and began to make plans to build a large housing complex there. After years of legal delays, the Supreme Court recently ruled that she may exercise her right to have the residents removed, regardless of whether the sides reach an agreement regarding compensation.
A Haaretz report of this past summer quotes Dr. Sandy Kedar, a lawyer who teaches at Haifa University, saying that though the eviction may be on solid ground in terms of dry law, "If you look at what is happening in Kfar Shalem and compare it, for example, to Kibbutz Galil Yam, then it can be argued that this is a discriminatory policy verging on illegality." The reference is to a decision by the government earlier this year enabling residents of state-owned kibbutz land to sell the land for an enormous profit - while those of Kfar Shalem are given nothing.
Resident Speaks With Arutz-7
Dudi Balasi, whose family arrived from Yemen 60 years ago and was settled in Kfar Shalem, told Arutz-7 that the entire affair is a scandal involving an "evil alliance" of government (specifically, the Tel Aviv Municipality) and real estate business interests operating at the expense of citizens who fell victim to a government mistake for which no one wishes to take responsibility. "Even more than that," he said. "I have been paying rent to the Amidar government housing agency for many years - even though in 2002, this very property that I have been paying for was sold to Mrs. Efrati. So why did they take money from me?"
Asked if Amidar had offered to return his rent money, Balasi said, "Who wants rent? What we demand is alternate housing, period."
Balasi said that his father's brother's daughter had been one of the famous Yemenite Children who disappeared in the early 50's: "My uncle brought her to the hospital one day, and was suddenly told that she had died..."
Asked where he would now live, Balasi said, "The bulldozers only destroyed part of our house, because it was built precisely on a line dividing up the various parcels of land. So we're left with two small rooms, and I'm waiting for a tent to arrive."
The City's Response
A staffer at the Tel Aviv Municipality Spokesman's office told Arutz-7 that it had no statement to make, as it it not a party to the dispute. Asked if the municipality would aid the displaced residents, she said, "Those who need help will receive it; representatives of our social welfare department were at the site today.".
Iranian Jews Leave Their Silent Nightmare, Come Home to Israel
Hana Levi Julian
Ten Iranian Jewish families – 40 Iranian Jews in all -- began new lives Tuesday night when they came home to Israel. “How they were brought to Israel and information about who they are is classified information,” Jewish Agency spokesman Michael Jankelovitch said in an exclusive interview with Israel National News. “This is a new initiative,” said Jankelovitch, “a joint project of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews headed by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and the Jewish Agency for Israel.”
A total of 200 Iranian Jews made Aliyah (immigrated to Israel) this year, triple the number from just a year ago, when only 65 Jews made Aliyah to Israel from Iran. According to Jankelovitch, the majority of the Jews who left Iran permanently this year came to Israel.
One million dollars – fully half of the budget for this year’s project, came from the Fellowship, said Jankelovitch, adding that the entire sum has been exhausted. “The organization is now embarking on a new campaign to raise funds to continue the work for 2008,” he added.
A Silent Nightmare
Their lives are at stake...Learning the Hebrew language has been banned. There are no more Jewish day schools have been closed down - all of them.
Why Iranian Jews, and why now?
“Because their lives are at stake,” answered Jankelovitz simply. “They are in a unique situation because of the regime. There are increased cases of discrimination. Learning the Hebrew language has been banned. Jewish day schools have been closed down – all of them. There are no more Jewish day schools in Iran,” he said.
Jewish children have to go to school on Shabbat, and on all Jewish holidays including Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.
“They come with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a small suitcase with almost no money at all,” said Jankelovitch. “Their money is worthless because of the exchange rate. People live in a beautiful house which they sell and it is not even worth $10,000.”
In order to balance that hardship, each new immigrant from Iran, including the children, receives a grant of $10,000. A family of five thus receives a total of $50,000 with which to begin their new lives in addition to the usual basket of new immigrant benefits received by everyone else who comes to make Israel their home.
Leaving 'Takes Guts'
Although there is no problem leaving Iran permanently to live elsewhere, emigrants cannot travel directly to Israel, said Jankelovitch. Nor is America an option at this point due to the political situation. The U.S. has imposed strict sanctions against Iran in the hopes of forcing the Islamic Republic to abandon its headlong rush toward development of what both the U.S. and Israel suspect is a nuclear weapon which could be aimed at the Jewish State.
Despite the growing hardships, however, there are still 28,000 Iranian Jews who have remained in the Islamic Republic.
“People are afraid of the unknown,” Jankelovitch told Israel National News bluntly. “Leaving the town you know, friends and neighbors, takes guts.” Every effort is being made to convince those left behind to leave while they still can.
“All the information for an Iranian Jew who wants to know about making Aliyah is available online, in Farsi,” he said. (The website created for this purpose is at http://www.israel-iran.org) “There is a free flow of information,” he added. “Iran is not a backward, third world country. There is word of mouth, people can go to internet cafes.”
There is no fear of being "tracked down" for accessing information about moving to Israel, he said. “We hope more, many more will come next year. Israel wants Iranian Jews to come home.”
.
Ten Iranian Jewish families – 40 Iranian Jews in all -- began new lives Tuesday night when they came home to Israel. “How they were brought to Israel and information about who they are is classified information,” Jewish Agency spokesman Michael Jankelovitch said in an exclusive interview with Israel National News. “This is a new initiative,” said Jankelovitch, “a joint project of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews headed by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and the Jewish Agency for Israel.”
A total of 200 Iranian Jews made Aliyah (immigrated to Israel) this year, triple the number from just a year ago, when only 65 Jews made Aliyah to Israel from Iran. According to Jankelovitch, the majority of the Jews who left Iran permanently this year came to Israel.
One million dollars – fully half of the budget for this year’s project, came from the Fellowship, said Jankelovitch, adding that the entire sum has been exhausted. “The organization is now embarking on a new campaign to raise funds to continue the work for 2008,” he added.
A Silent Nightmare
Their lives are at stake...Learning the Hebrew language has been banned. There are no more Jewish day schools have been closed down - all of them.
Why Iranian Jews, and why now?
“Because their lives are at stake,” answered Jankelovitz simply. “They are in a unique situation because of the regime. There are increased cases of discrimination. Learning the Hebrew language has been banned. Jewish day schools have been closed down – all of them. There are no more Jewish day schools in Iran,” he said.
Jewish children have to go to school on Shabbat, and on all Jewish holidays including Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.
“They come with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a small suitcase with almost no money at all,” said Jankelovitch. “Their money is worthless because of the exchange rate. People live in a beautiful house which they sell and it is not even worth $10,000.”
In order to balance that hardship, each new immigrant from Iran, including the children, receives a grant of $10,000. A family of five thus receives a total of $50,000 with which to begin their new lives in addition to the usual basket of new immigrant benefits received by everyone else who comes to make Israel their home.
Leaving 'Takes Guts'
Although there is no problem leaving Iran permanently to live elsewhere, emigrants cannot travel directly to Israel, said Jankelovitch. Nor is America an option at this point due to the political situation. The U.S. has imposed strict sanctions against Iran in the hopes of forcing the Islamic Republic to abandon its headlong rush toward development of what both the U.S. and Israel suspect is a nuclear weapon which could be aimed at the Jewish State.
Despite the growing hardships, however, there are still 28,000 Iranian Jews who have remained in the Islamic Republic.
“People are afraid of the unknown,” Jankelovitch told Israel National News bluntly. “Leaving the town you know, friends and neighbors, takes guts.” Every effort is being made to convince those left behind to leave while they still can.
“All the information for an Iranian Jew who wants to know about making Aliyah is available online, in Farsi,” he said. (The website created for this purpose is at http://www.israel-iran.org) “There is a free flow of information,” he added. “Iran is not a backward, third world country. There is word of mouth, people can go to internet cafes.”
There is no fear of being "tracked down" for accessing information about moving to Israel, he said. “We hope more, many more will come next year. Israel wants Iranian Jews to come home.”
.
Bolton: State Department Leftists Have Defeated Bush
Kenneth R. Timmerman
“I think we are very close to a decision point,” John Bolton says. “And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.”
Resistance by partisan ”shadow warriors” at the Department of State has limited the president’s options and is bringing us dangerously close to a military showdown with Iran, former Bush administration official John Bolton told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice initially had planned to provide significant aid to the pro-democracy movement in Iran, as a means of giving the president more policy options, Bolton said. But resistance by the State Department bureaucracy crippled the programs and rendered them ineffective.
“[T]he outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime,” Bolton said.
“This is a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years, we would be in a lot different position today,” he added.
The State Department emphasis on European-led negotiations has allowed Iran to buy time and to perfect the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons, Bolton argued.
Even if President Bush decided to reinvigorate the pro-democracy programs tomorrow, Bolton believes we probably don’t have enough time for them to be effective before the Iranians get the bomb.
“I think we are very close to a decision point,” Bolton told Newsmax. “And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.”
Bolton said that the CIA shared the State Department’s opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly to undermine the Iranian regime, and faulted Secretary of State Rice for getting “co-opted” by the bureaucracy.
“Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and the exclusively diplomatic approach for four years,” he said.
This approach is particularly dangerous because the U.S. intelligence community has almost always been wrong in its estimates of when Iran could acquire nuclear weapons capability, Bolton said.
One of reason for the inability to get Iran right is an unwillingness to talk to Iranian defectors. “Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness,” he said.
As a result of such prejudices, “[o]ur lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial… Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives.”
Bolton worries that bad intelligence, coupled to wishful thinking by bureaucrats who tend to downplay the threat, could lead to strategic surprise by Iran or North Korea.
“I personally do not believe in just-in-time non-proliferation,” he said.
Bolton has long been an advocate of muscular diplomacy.
When he served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation during the early years of the Bush administration, he frequently crossed swords with arms control advocates who were viscerally opposed to imposing sanctions on proliferators.
In his recent book, “Surrender is Not an Option,” Bolton names one such official, Vann Van Diepen, who refused to act on direct orders to apply nonproliferation sanctions.
As Newsmax revealed on December 4, Van Diepen was one of three former State Department officials who authored the much-disputed recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
The arms controllers are also trying to rewrite history on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, Bolton warned.
During negotiations in 2002, the North Korean government admitted that in addition to its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon, it also had a clandestine uranium enrichment program.
For once, Bolton said, “all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program.”
And yet today, the arms controllers are trying to walk back that conclusion and “rewrite history” in order to cover-up North Korea’s lies and dissembling, Bolton said.
Bolton also was critical of the Bush White House for not doing more to name and retain strong conservatives in the administration.
When his nomination to become the permanent U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was submitted to the Senate, for example, the administration ran a confirmation battle, whereas the Democrats engaged in a full-fledged political campaign. “Given that, the outcome was predictable,” Bolton said.
The consequences of allowing the shadow warriors run the government instead of Bush loyalists have been dramatic, since they have succeeded in “turning the President’s policy in effect in a 180-degree U-turn” in North Korea and other areas, Bolton said.
Bolton said he planned to continue “hawking” his book until Christmas, then would take off January while he mulled future opportunities.
He said he eventually planned to join one of the Republican presidential campaigns, but hadn’t yet chosen his candidate.
Excerpts from the interview:
NEWSMAX: Do you think we are heading for war with Iran.
JOHN BOLTON: I think there is little doubt that Iran has mastered the Science and technology it needs to enrich uranium. That means that the time and the manner in which it acquires a nuclear weapons capability is entirely within its discretion. It’s only a matter of resources, and with oil at 90 dollars a barrel plus, Iran doesn’t lack for resources. That means that if the president follows through on his view that Iranian nuclear weapons are unacceptable then we are at a decision point very quickly on whether to use military force.
My preference would be regime change in Iran. I think there is a real possibility that the different democratic regime would make the decision that pursuing nuclear weapons is not really in Iran’s interest. But that’s nothing you can turn on or off like a light switch. So because of the wasted time allowing the Europeans to try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear weapons, I think our options are very few. And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.
NEWSMAX: Why do we have so few options now?
BOLTON: Because by deferring to the EU 3 these last four plus, almost five years. we have limited our ability to do other things to see if we can get effective sanctions at the Security Council. I don’t think sanctions are going to have a chance of being effective any longer. Especially not UN sanctions. And this long period of time has put Iran in a much more favorable position. It’s a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years we would be in a lot different position today.
It’s not just the nuclear program. It’s Iran’s support for terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, including their activity particularly against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. So if steps are not taken soon, Iran and other nations in the region will draw the conclusion that we are not serious about stopping Iran’s nuclear program, we are not serious about stopping Iranian support for terrorism and they will draw the appropriate conclusions, all of which will be negative to American interest.
NEWSMAX: Why hasn’t [Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice] done anything to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran? Why has the $75 million program to help the pro-democracy movement had so little impact?
BOLTON: I think there is enormous bureaucratic opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly from both the State and CIA bureaucracies. And as on so many other issues, I think, Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and exclusively diplomatic approach for four years.
NEWSMAX: Do you think she is convinced we can do nothing to help the pro democracy movement? After all this was her program.
BOLTON: This is completely inexplicable to me. On the overt side she announced it with great fanfare, but as we can see with the recent resignation of the head of the program at the State Department, it has gone nowhere. The argument that identifying Iranian Diaspora groups as being linked to our program makes it disadvantageous for them is belied by the statements of many of these groups who say ‘we need the help and we’re pleased to have it.’ But the outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime. So in effect, we have been doing nothing for getting on to five years now except deferring to the Europeans
NEWSMAX: So this leaves us basically with war, or a nuclear armed Iran--
BOLTON? --Or regime change, if we have the time. The problem is we likely do not have the amount of time that would be required. If we only had been more active over the past several years we might not be faced with the unhappy alternative of having to use force.
NEWSMAX: How do you see this scenario developing? How do we get to the point of using military force? What happens next?
BOLTON: I think we are very close to a decision point. There are all kinds of estimates of when Iran will actually have a nuclear capability. They are all based on assumptions. So if some of those assumptions turn out to be wrong, the Iranians can have the weapons capability much earlier than the estimates would lead you to believe.
I personally do not believe in just in-time non-proliferation. There’s too much of a risk there that intelligence and analysis can be wrong by understating the threat as well as by overstating the threat. Moreover the Iranians are obviously aware of the risk they run and I think every day that goes by gives them more of an opportunity to harden their existing facilities such as at Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility, or to build completely alternative facilities of which we have no knowledge. Our lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial. That doesn’t make me feel better; it makes me more nervous. Time is working against us. Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives.
NEWSMAX: I’ve just written a book called Shadow Warriors that talks about people in the CIA and the State Department who have attempted to undermine the president’s policies. Do you think the $75 million that Condi announced to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran was undermined by people who don’t agree with the policy?
BOLTON: I don’t think there is any doubt of it. There are many people at the State Department who simply don’t like the concept of regime change whether done through pro-democracy groups or done clandestinely. They especially don’t like a program that could be said to undercut the European efforts of diplomacy. I think the failure of the $75 million program sends an enormous signal through out the bureaucracy that resistance can work. This is going to have negative consequences not just for the situation in Iran but for a range of other policy issues around the world.
NEWSMAX: So the shadow warriors won this round?
BOLTON: I think there is no doubt about it. I don’t profess to know everything that went on, but you can tell when the director of the program resigns and basically says, ‘I can’t make it work,’ that there is obviously something badly wrong.
NEWSMAX: How is this Administration’s track record on hiring and keeping conservatives in key positions?
BOLTON: I think it is unfortunately not very good. I talk about this in my book, about what happens when Presidential personnel doesn’t focus on the very difficult circumstances appointees face within the State department, which is one of the savviest bureaucracies in Washington experts in co-opting, seducing or subverting political appointees who try to pursue policies it disagrees with. And I think in this Administration, it has had considerable success. I use the example of North Korea, and what’s happened to our policy there. What has happened since I wrote the book is an even more graphic example of the bureaucracy in effect turning the President’s policy in effect in a 180 degree U-turn.
NEWSMAX: Do you think the North Korean have agreed to talk and to shut down the reactor because they have sold off the critical elements?
BOLTON: I think they are doing the same thing they did under the [1994] Agreed Framework. I think they have been planning to cheat on their declaration and their program and hope they get away with it, which they will if we don’t have an adequate verification program.
And I think this facility [in Syria] that the Israelis bombed on September 6 is an indication of yet another alternative, which is either to clone the Yongbyon reactor or outsource some of the nuclear weapons program. How better to hide your North Korean program than to build it in Syria where nobody is looking!
Just this morning there was a story that it may be harder to shut done Yongbyon than people thought. Now this will extend into the next year, which I think is part of North Korea’s pattern of slow-rolling the program. But which also shows something which I and others have been saying for some time, which is that Yongbyon is at or beyond its useful life. Part of the reason they have difficulties extracting the fuel rods that are in there now is that the whole facility is in terrible repair, which means they agreeing to freeze it or even to dismantle it is not such a big concession from the North Koreans. They may already have been able to extract as much plutonium as they were going to be able to. Shutting down a broken facility is hardly a sign of good faith.
NEWSMAX: There is a lot of dispute about North Korea’s uranium program. You write in your book that the North Koreans talked to our delegation in 2002 about the uranium enrichment program. Do you think that is what they transferred to Syria?
BOLTON: It’s hard to say what they’ve transferred. There was no sign of radiation escaping after the Israeli attack [on Syria], which seems to indicate that they proceeded before there was any actual enriched uranium or even unenriched uranium there. Otherwise you would see likely release of radiation.
In my book, I go through this business of what Jim Kelly confronted the North Koreans with in 2002, and what the North Koreans said in response. There was no ambiguity in 2002 about the intelligence. In fact, what happened was that in the early summer 2002, for a change, all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program. That was what was significant. That after years of disagreement within the intelligence community, they had reached consensus. And there was no dispute at that time. Nor is there really dispute about the North Korean reaction to Kelly’s trip, that they admitted they had a uranium enrichment program. It’s not just my book. Read Jack Prichard’s book, published by Brookings. He says there was no ambiguity, and he was there!
I think this is significant, because people are now trying to rewrite history, to help excuse why the North Koreans are not dissembling when they say they have no enrichment program. They are trying to lay the groundwork that there never was a program, so when the North Koreans say they don’t have one it’s not another example of dissembling.
NEWSMAX: Would their uranium enrichment program have come from Pakistan, or would they have had access earlier to the technology?
BOLTON: My guess is in part they had some technology from AQ Khan. But I think it was more of them acting as a general contractor building their own program, using AQ Khan for pieces of it, as opposed to Libya, who said to AQ Khan, you are the general contractor, you create the program for us.
NEWSMAX: It really astounds me the lack of information on the Iranian nuclear program, and the unwillingness of the Intelligence community to talk to Iranians, even to Iranian exiles.
BOLTON: Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness.
Not only has our human intelligence capability declined dramatically over the last several decades, there doesn’t seem to be much inclination to want to build it back up.
Look at Joe Wilson: the best our intelligence community can do is send a former ambassador to Niger to have tea with officials that say, ‘ so, what’s up on the uranium front?’ That’s our intelligence community? Forget everything else about Valerie Plame. That whole story is unbelievable! .
“I think we are very close to a decision point,” John Bolton says. “And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.”
Resistance by partisan ”shadow warriors” at the Department of State has limited the president’s options and is bringing us dangerously close to a military showdown with Iran, former Bush administration official John Bolton told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice initially had planned to provide significant aid to the pro-democracy movement in Iran, as a means of giving the president more policy options, Bolton said. But resistance by the State Department bureaucracy crippled the programs and rendered them ineffective.
“[T]he outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime,” Bolton said.
“This is a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years, we would be in a lot different position today,” he added.
The State Department emphasis on European-led negotiations has allowed Iran to buy time and to perfect the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons, Bolton argued.
Even if President Bush decided to reinvigorate the pro-democracy programs tomorrow, Bolton believes we probably don’t have enough time for them to be effective before the Iranians get the bomb.
“I think we are very close to a decision point,” Bolton told Newsmax. “And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.”
Bolton said that the CIA shared the State Department’s opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly to undermine the Iranian regime, and faulted Secretary of State Rice for getting “co-opted” by the bureaucracy.
“Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and the exclusively diplomatic approach for four years,” he said.
This approach is particularly dangerous because the U.S. intelligence community has almost always been wrong in its estimates of when Iran could acquire nuclear weapons capability, Bolton said.
One of reason for the inability to get Iran right is an unwillingness to talk to Iranian defectors. “Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness,” he said.
As a result of such prejudices, “[o]ur lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial… Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives.”
Bolton worries that bad intelligence, coupled to wishful thinking by bureaucrats who tend to downplay the threat, could lead to strategic surprise by Iran or North Korea.
“I personally do not believe in just-in-time non-proliferation,” he said.
Bolton has long been an advocate of muscular diplomacy.
When he served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation during the early years of the Bush administration, he frequently crossed swords with arms control advocates who were viscerally opposed to imposing sanctions on proliferators.
In his recent book, “Surrender is Not an Option,” Bolton names one such official, Vann Van Diepen, who refused to act on direct orders to apply nonproliferation sanctions.
As Newsmax revealed on December 4, Van Diepen was one of three former State Department officials who authored the much-disputed recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
The arms controllers are also trying to rewrite history on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, Bolton warned.
During negotiations in 2002, the North Korean government admitted that in addition to its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon, it also had a clandestine uranium enrichment program.
For once, Bolton said, “all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program.”
And yet today, the arms controllers are trying to walk back that conclusion and “rewrite history” in order to cover-up North Korea’s lies and dissembling, Bolton said.
Bolton also was critical of the Bush White House for not doing more to name and retain strong conservatives in the administration.
When his nomination to become the permanent U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was submitted to the Senate, for example, the administration ran a confirmation battle, whereas the Democrats engaged in a full-fledged political campaign. “Given that, the outcome was predictable,” Bolton said.
The consequences of allowing the shadow warriors run the government instead of Bush loyalists have been dramatic, since they have succeeded in “turning the President’s policy in effect in a 180-degree U-turn” in North Korea and other areas, Bolton said.
Bolton said he planned to continue “hawking” his book until Christmas, then would take off January while he mulled future opportunities.
He said he eventually planned to join one of the Republican presidential campaigns, but hadn’t yet chosen his candidate.
Excerpts from the interview:
NEWSMAX: Do you think we are heading for war with Iran.
JOHN BOLTON: I think there is little doubt that Iran has mastered the Science and technology it needs to enrich uranium. That means that the time and the manner in which it acquires a nuclear weapons capability is entirely within its discretion. It’s only a matter of resources, and with oil at 90 dollars a barrel plus, Iran doesn’t lack for resources. That means that if the president follows through on his view that Iranian nuclear weapons are unacceptable then we are at a decision point very quickly on whether to use military force.
My preference would be regime change in Iran. I think there is a real possibility that the different democratic regime would make the decision that pursuing nuclear weapons is not really in Iran’s interest. But that’s nothing you can turn on or off like a light switch. So because of the wasted time allowing the Europeans to try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear weapons, I think our options are very few. And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.
NEWSMAX: Why do we have so few options now?
BOLTON: Because by deferring to the EU 3 these last four plus, almost five years. we have limited our ability to do other things to see if we can get effective sanctions at the Security Council. I don’t think sanctions are going to have a chance of being effective any longer. Especially not UN sanctions. And this long period of time has put Iran in a much more favorable position. It’s a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years we would be in a lot different position today.
It’s not just the nuclear program. It’s Iran’s support for terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, including their activity particularly against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. So if steps are not taken soon, Iran and other nations in the region will draw the conclusion that we are not serious about stopping Iran’s nuclear program, we are not serious about stopping Iranian support for terrorism and they will draw the appropriate conclusions, all of which will be negative to American interest.
NEWSMAX: Why hasn’t [Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice] done anything to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran? Why has the $75 million program to help the pro-democracy movement had so little impact?
BOLTON: I think there is enormous bureaucratic opposition to doing anything overtly or covertly from both the State and CIA bureaucracies. And as on so many other issues, I think, Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and exclusively diplomatic approach for four years.
NEWSMAX: Do you think she is convinced we can do nothing to help the pro democracy movement? After all this was her program.
BOLTON: This is completely inexplicable to me. On the overt side she announced it with great fanfare, but as we can see with the recent resignation of the head of the program at the State Department, it has gone nowhere. The argument that identifying Iranian Diaspora groups as being linked to our program makes it disadvantageous for them is belied by the statements of many of these groups who say ‘we need the help and we’re pleased to have it.’ But the outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime. So in effect, we have been doing nothing for getting on to five years now except deferring to the Europeans
NEWSMAX: So this leaves us basically with war, or a nuclear armed Iran--
BOLTON? --Or regime change, if we have the time. The problem is we likely do not have the amount of time that would be required. If we only had been more active over the past several years we might not be faced with the unhappy alternative of having to use force.
NEWSMAX: How do you see this scenario developing? How do we get to the point of using military force? What happens next?
BOLTON: I think we are very close to a decision point. There are all kinds of estimates of when Iran will actually have a nuclear capability. They are all based on assumptions. So if some of those assumptions turn out to be wrong, the Iranians can have the weapons capability much earlier than the estimates would lead you to believe.
I personally do not believe in just in-time non-proliferation. There’s too much of a risk there that intelligence and analysis can be wrong by understating the threat as well as by overstating the threat. Moreover the Iranians are obviously aware of the risk they run and I think every day that goes by gives them more of an opportunity to harden their existing facilities such as at Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility, or to build completely alternative facilities of which we have no knowledge. Our lack of reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial. That doesn’t make me feel better; it makes me more nervous. Time is working against us. Every day the military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives.
NEWSMAX: I’ve just written a book called Shadow Warriors that talks about people in the CIA and the State Department who have attempted to undermine the president’s policies. Do you think the $75 million that Condi announced to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran was undermined by people who don’t agree with the policy?
BOLTON: I don’t think there is any doubt of it. There are many people at the State Department who simply don’t like the concept of regime change whether done through pro-democracy groups or done clandestinely. They especially don’t like a program that could be said to undercut the European efforts of diplomacy. I think the failure of the $75 million program sends an enormous signal through out the bureaucracy that resistance can work. This is going to have negative consequences not just for the situation in Iran but for a range of other policy issues around the world.
NEWSMAX: So the shadow warriors won this round?
BOLTON: I think there is no doubt about it. I don’t profess to know everything that went on, but you can tell when the director of the program resigns and basically says, ‘I can’t make it work,’ that there is obviously something badly wrong.
NEWSMAX: How is this Administration’s track record on hiring and keeping conservatives in key positions?
BOLTON: I think it is unfortunately not very good. I talk about this in my book, about what happens when Presidential personnel doesn’t focus on the very difficult circumstances appointees face within the State department, which is one of the savviest bureaucracies in Washington experts in co-opting, seducing or subverting political appointees who try to pursue policies it disagrees with. And I think in this Administration, it has had considerable success. I use the example of North Korea, and what’s happened to our policy there. What has happened since I wrote the book is an even more graphic example of the bureaucracy in effect turning the President’s policy in effect in a 180 degree U-turn.
NEWSMAX: Do you think the North Korean have agreed to talk and to shut down the reactor because they have sold off the critical elements?
BOLTON: I think they are doing the same thing they did under the [1994] Agreed Framework. I think they have been planning to cheat on their declaration and their program and hope they get away with it, which they will if we don’t have an adequate verification program.
And I think this facility [in Syria] that the Israelis bombed on September 6 is an indication of yet another alternative, which is either to clone the Yongbyon reactor or outsource some of the nuclear weapons program. How better to hide your North Korean program than to build it in Syria where nobody is looking!
Just this morning there was a story that it may be harder to shut done Yongbyon than people thought. Now this will extend into the next year, which I think is part of North Korea’s pattern of slow-rolling the program. But which also shows something which I and others have been saying for some time, which is that Yongbyon is at or beyond its useful life. Part of the reason they have difficulties extracting the fuel rods that are in there now is that the whole facility is in terrible repair, which means they agreeing to freeze it or even to dismantle it is not such a big concession from the North Koreans. They may already have been able to extract as much plutonium as they were going to be able to. Shutting down a broken facility is hardly a sign of good faith.
NEWSMAX: There is a lot of dispute about North Korea’s uranium program. You write in your book that the North Koreans talked to our delegation in 2002 about the uranium enrichment program. Do you think that is what they transferred to Syria?
BOLTON: It’s hard to say what they’ve transferred. There was no sign of radiation escaping after the Israeli attack [on Syria], which seems to indicate that they proceeded before there was any actual enriched uranium or even unenriched uranium there. Otherwise you would see likely release of radiation.
In my book, I go through this business of what Jim Kelly confronted the North Koreans with in 2002, and what the North Koreans said in response. There was no ambiguity in 2002 about the intelligence. In fact, what happened was that in the early summer 2002, for a change, all of the intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program. That was what was significant. That after years of disagreement within the intelligence community, they had reached consensus. And there was no dispute at that time. Nor is there really dispute about the North Korean reaction to Kelly’s trip, that they admitted they had a uranium enrichment program. It’s not just my book. Read Jack Prichard’s book, published by Brookings. He says there was no ambiguity, and he was there!
I think this is significant, because people are now trying to rewrite history, to help excuse why the North Koreans are not dissembling when they say they have no enrichment program. They are trying to lay the groundwork that there never was a program, so when the North Koreans say they don’t have one it’s not another example of dissembling.
NEWSMAX: Would their uranium enrichment program have come from Pakistan, or would they have had access earlier to the technology?
BOLTON: My guess is in part they had some technology from AQ Khan. But I think it was more of them acting as a general contractor building their own program, using AQ Khan for pieces of it, as opposed to Libya, who said to AQ Khan, you are the general contractor, you create the program for us.
NEWSMAX: It really astounds me the lack of information on the Iranian nuclear program, and the unwillingness of the Intelligence community to talk to Iranians, even to Iranian exiles.
BOLTON: Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness.
Not only has our human intelligence capability declined dramatically over the last several decades, there doesn’t seem to be much inclination to want to build it back up.
Look at Joe Wilson: the best our intelligence community can do is send a former ambassador to Niger to have tea with officials that say, ‘ so, what’s up on the uranium front?’ That’s our intelligence community? Forget everything else about Valerie Plame. That whole story is unbelievable! .
The Year of Acting Dangerously
Barry Rubin
December 23, 2007
While 2007 didn't greatly change the Middle East compared to some of its predecessors, here are some of its significant trends which will continue to dominate the year to come.
Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. This is the most important single Middle East event of 2007 because it is a clear, probably irreversible, shift in the balance of power. Four decades of a movement dominated by nationalists has come to an end. Given Fatah's continuing weaknesses it is conceivable that Hamas will take over the West Bank within a few years and marginalize its rival. To Islamists, this is a great victory. In fact, it is a disaster for Palestinians and Arabs. It deepens divisions and destroys any real (as opposed to the silly superficial events that take up governments' time and media space) diplomatic option for them. A negotiated resolution of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it prospects for a Palestinian state, has been set back for decades. Much Western sympathy has been lost. In years to come, struggles between Arab nationalists and Islamists, as well as between Sunnis and Shias, will dwarf the Arab-Israeli conflict. During 2008 we will have to assess whether the Palestinian Authority still ruling the West Bank can meet the Hamas challenge. (We already know it won't meet the diplomatic challenge but it will take all year for most Western politicians and much of the media to discover that.)
The military success of the U.S. surge in Iraq. U.S. forces showed that pessimistic assessments were wrong and they were able to reduce the power of anti-government insurgents and lower the death toll in Iraq. However, this is a long way from winning the war. During 2008 the two key questions will be whether U.S. troop withdrawals start in earnest and whether there is any political progress in bringing together Sunni and Shia communities in that country. It is hard to imagine what might change to bring about such an agreement. And even if the insurgents can kill fewer people they are likely to do enough damage to intimidate Sunnis from making peace. Still, the Iraqi government and society could grow strong enough to dispense with U.S. combat troops.
The Western failure to tighten sanctions substantially against Iran. It was clear in 2007 that negotiations with Tehran would fail to deter Iran from its campaign to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, France, Britain and Germany were more willing to take--or at least to talk about taking--action but due to their own hesitations, plus resistance from Russia and China, very little happened. The reaction to these events in Iran was mixed. On one hand, there was more worry about the pressures facing that country plus its own economic woes. On the other hand, the regime expressed more confidence that the West was chicken and that time and tide was on Iran's side. In 2008 we will be able to see if Tehran's drive for nuclear weapons continues without serious hindrance. Equally, it will be possible to assess whether President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is being weakened by his factional opponents--especially in the March parliamentary elections--or tightening his hold on power and holding to his reckless course.
U.S. policy returns to traditional stance. Whatever innovations, for better or worse, President George Bush introduced into American regional policy have vanished in 2007. He is largely back to the traditional approach as carried out by both his father and predecessor. The administration has given up on reform or backing democracy. In 2008, a new president will be chosen but real policy shifts will take until the following year of course.
Israel prospers. Despite outdated talk of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's weakness, he used 2007 to rebuild his authority. Especially interesting, Israel's economic growth has been impressive; unemployment fallen to all-time lows. Revolutionary enthusiasm and paper victories still thrill the Arab world and Iran but material gains continue to be what is important.
The demoralization of Lebanon. Worried that it is being abandoned by the West, forces supporting the moderate Lebanese government began to wonder if in fact Iran, Syria, and Hizballah would be able to reestablish their control over the country. A key element is the identity of the country's next president. In 2008, it will be important to watch how power shifts in Beirut and whether the investigation of Syrian involvement in terrorism against Lebanese opposition figures leads to an international tribunal.
France changes course. President Francois Sarkozy has moved France away from the nationalistic effort to undercut the United States and appease radical regimes. Sarkozy, however, has played footsie with Syria and Libya. The question for 2008: Will he implement pledges to get tougher and will French institutions follow him in changing course?
.
December 23, 2007
While 2007 didn't greatly change the Middle East compared to some of its predecessors, here are some of its significant trends which will continue to dominate the year to come.
Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. This is the most important single Middle East event of 2007 because it is a clear, probably irreversible, shift in the balance of power. Four decades of a movement dominated by nationalists has come to an end. Given Fatah's continuing weaknesses it is conceivable that Hamas will take over the West Bank within a few years and marginalize its rival. To Islamists, this is a great victory. In fact, it is a disaster for Palestinians and Arabs. It deepens divisions and destroys any real (as opposed to the silly superficial events that take up governments' time and media space) diplomatic option for them. A negotiated resolution of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it prospects for a Palestinian state, has been set back for decades. Much Western sympathy has been lost. In years to come, struggles between Arab nationalists and Islamists, as well as between Sunnis and Shias, will dwarf the Arab-Israeli conflict. During 2008 we will have to assess whether the Palestinian Authority still ruling the West Bank can meet the Hamas challenge. (We already know it won't meet the diplomatic challenge but it will take all year for most Western politicians and much of the media to discover that.)
The military success of the U.S. surge in Iraq. U.S. forces showed that pessimistic assessments were wrong and they were able to reduce the power of anti-government insurgents and lower the death toll in Iraq. However, this is a long way from winning the war. During 2008 the two key questions will be whether U.S. troop withdrawals start in earnest and whether there is any political progress in bringing together Sunni and Shia communities in that country. It is hard to imagine what might change to bring about such an agreement. And even if the insurgents can kill fewer people they are likely to do enough damage to intimidate Sunnis from making peace. Still, the Iraqi government and society could grow strong enough to dispense with U.S. combat troops.
The Western failure to tighten sanctions substantially against Iran. It was clear in 2007 that negotiations with Tehran would fail to deter Iran from its campaign to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, France, Britain and Germany were more willing to take--or at least to talk about taking--action but due to their own hesitations, plus resistance from Russia and China, very little happened. The reaction to these events in Iran was mixed. On one hand, there was more worry about the pressures facing that country plus its own economic woes. On the other hand, the regime expressed more confidence that the West was chicken and that time and tide was on Iran's side. In 2008 we will be able to see if Tehran's drive for nuclear weapons continues without serious hindrance. Equally, it will be possible to assess whether President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is being weakened by his factional opponents--especially in the March parliamentary elections--or tightening his hold on power and holding to his reckless course.
U.S. policy returns to traditional stance. Whatever innovations, for better or worse, President George Bush introduced into American regional policy have vanished in 2007. He is largely back to the traditional approach as carried out by both his father and predecessor. The administration has given up on reform or backing democracy. In 2008, a new president will be chosen but real policy shifts will take until the following year of course.
Israel prospers. Despite outdated talk of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's weakness, he used 2007 to rebuild his authority. Especially interesting, Israel's economic growth has been impressive; unemployment fallen to all-time lows. Revolutionary enthusiasm and paper victories still thrill the Arab world and Iran but material gains continue to be what is important.
The demoralization of Lebanon. Worried that it is being abandoned by the West, forces supporting the moderate Lebanese government began to wonder if in fact Iran, Syria, and Hizballah would be able to reestablish their control over the country. A key element is the identity of the country's next president. In 2008, it will be important to watch how power shifts in Beirut and whether the investigation of Syrian involvement in terrorism against Lebanese opposition figures leads to an international tribunal.
France changes course. President Francois Sarkozy has moved France away from the nationalistic effort to undercut the United States and appease radical regimes. Sarkozy, however, has played footsie with Syria and Libya. The question for 2008: Will he implement pledges to get tougher and will French institutions follow him in changing course?
.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Israel and US partner in alternative energy research
David Brinn
US President George W. Bush signed into law this week a bill that will grant millions of dollars in funds for joint US-Israeli research into alternative energy.
The bill, passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, will provide opportunities for joint research and development projects involving renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency. The law also requires greater fuel efficiency in automobiles and promotes ethanol production.
But according to the American Jewish Congress, which has been involved in promoting the bill for the last four and half years, the real goal of the US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act (USIECA) is to reduce American and world dependence on foreign oil, and the amount of oil profits that end up in the hands of countries hostile to the US and Israel.
"Our focus is from a strategic point of view," the AJC's Israel director Danny Grossman told ISRAEL21c. "Now it's sexy to talk about the environment and Al Gore and global warming. This idea comes from another motivation - get the oil dependency monkey off our back.
"Our vision of the world is where the oil bargaining chip would have a lesser value. It's not just a clean, green issue, although that's very important. But for us, it's a strategic security issue, for Israel and the United States."
The bill's original wording earmarked $20 million a year in grants, but the legislation ended up passing without a funding target. AJC executive director Neil Goldstein of the grant program, said he hoped as much as $30m. would be allocated for the grants in 2009, the first year grants will be available.
The USIECA was introduced as a separate bill by a bipartisan coalition led in the House by Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) and in the Senate by Chairman Bingaman (D-NM) and Gordon Smith (R-OR). According to Grossman, the conceptual need for the bill was an outgrowth of discussions between Israeli and US scientists, engineers, academicians and business leaders at an AJC-sponsored conference in Jerusalem in August 2003, which was co-hosted by the Israel Ministry for National Infrastructures and by the US Department of Energy.
Grossman said that despite Israel's relatively unremarkable standing in alternative energy R&D, the American-Israeli partnership makes perfect sense.
"If you look at major countries in the world which do R&D in energy development, Israel wouldn't be among the leaders. But, if you look at countries facing severe security problems and coming up with quick solutions, Israel is at the top of the list." he said.
"Look at the Arrow missile. The world has been trying to come up with a solution to ballistic missiles since the Cold War. And within 10 years of beginning development, Israeli-US collaboration has led to the Arrow missile system. It reflects on the capability of our R&D community. You match that with American technical know how and their financial muscle, and it's a match made in heaven."
The AJC's executive director Neil B. Goldstein added that just as US-Israel collaboration has also led to breakthroughs in the development of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, to protect US soldiers in Iraq, the USIECA will enable collaborations in energy technology.
"Israeli skills in solar energy can help produce hydrogen fuel; their skills in biotechnology can improve the conversion of cellulosic waste into ethanol and methanol; and their skills in chemistry, engineering and nanotechnology can improve the efficiency of fuel cells - to name just a few of the areas where Israeli scientists and engineers excel," he said.
USIECA establishes a multi-year program of grants for joint projects at the basic research level between US and Israeli academic institutions, and at the applied research and development level between US and Israeli companies.
According to Grossman, the program will be administered by the US Department of Energy which will appropriate funds to Israeli organizations to filter down to specific projects.
"We already have a proven track record with many organizations like the BIRD Foundation (the Israel-US Binational Industrial Research and Development)," he said.
US President George W. Bush signed into law this week a bill that will grant millions of dollars in funds for joint US-Israeli research into alternative energy.
The bill, passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, will provide opportunities for joint research and development projects involving renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency. The law also requires greater fuel efficiency in automobiles and promotes ethanol production.
But according to the American Jewish Congress, which has been involved in promoting the bill for the last four and half years, the real goal of the US-Israel Energy Cooperation Act (USIECA) is to reduce American and world dependence on foreign oil, and the amount of oil profits that end up in the hands of countries hostile to the US and Israel.
"Our focus is from a strategic point of view," the AJC's Israel director Danny Grossman told ISRAEL21c. "Now it's sexy to talk about the environment and Al Gore and global warming. This idea comes from another motivation - get the oil dependency monkey off our back.
"Our vision of the world is where the oil bargaining chip would have a lesser value. It's not just a clean, green issue, although that's very important. But for us, it's a strategic security issue, for Israel and the United States."
The bill's original wording earmarked $20 million a year in grants, but the legislation ended up passing without a funding target. AJC executive director Neil Goldstein of the grant program, said he hoped as much as $30m. would be allocated for the grants in 2009, the first year grants will be available.
The USIECA was introduced as a separate bill by a bipartisan coalition led in the House by Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) and in the Senate by Chairman Bingaman (D-NM) and Gordon Smith (R-OR). According to Grossman, the conceptual need for the bill was an outgrowth of discussions between Israeli and US scientists, engineers, academicians and business leaders at an AJC-sponsored conference in Jerusalem in August 2003, which was co-hosted by the Israel Ministry for National Infrastructures and by the US Department of Energy.
Grossman said that despite Israel's relatively unremarkable standing in alternative energy R&D, the American-Israeli partnership makes perfect sense.
"If you look at major countries in the world which do R&D in energy development, Israel wouldn't be among the leaders. But, if you look at countries facing severe security problems and coming up with quick solutions, Israel is at the top of the list." he said.
"Look at the Arrow missile. The world has been trying to come up with a solution to ballistic missiles since the Cold War. And within 10 years of beginning development, Israeli-US collaboration has led to the Arrow missile system. It reflects on the capability of our R&D community. You match that with American technical know how and their financial muscle, and it's a match made in heaven."
The AJC's executive director Neil B. Goldstein added that just as US-Israel collaboration has also led to breakthroughs in the development of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, to protect US soldiers in Iraq, the USIECA will enable collaborations in energy technology.
"Israeli skills in solar energy can help produce hydrogen fuel; their skills in biotechnology can improve the conversion of cellulosic waste into ethanol and methanol; and their skills in chemistry, engineering and nanotechnology can improve the efficiency of fuel cells - to name just a few of the areas where Israeli scientists and engineers excel," he said.
USIECA establishes a multi-year program of grants for joint projects at the basic research level between US and Israeli academic institutions, and at the applied research and development level between US and Israeli companies.
According to Grossman, the program will be administered by the US Department of Energy which will appropriate funds to Israeli organizations to filter down to specific projects.
"We already have a proven track record with many organizations like the BIRD Foundation (the Israel-US Binational Industrial Research and Development)," he said.
The Year of Acting Dangerously
Barry Rubin
While 2007 didn't greatly change the Middle East compared to many of its predecessors, here are some of its significant trends which will continue to dominate the year to come. 1. Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. This is the most important single Middle East event of 2007 because it is a clear, probably irreversible, shift in the balance of power. Four decades of a movement dominated by nationalists has come to an end. Given Fatah’s continuing weaknesses it is conceivable that Hamas will take over the West Bank within a few years and marginalize its rival.
To Islamists, this is a great victory. In fact, it is a disaster for Palestinians and Arabs. It deepens divisions and destroys any real (as opposed to the silly superficial events that take up governments’ time and media space) diplomatic option for them. A negotiated resolution of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it prospects for a Palestinian state, has been set back for decades. Much Western sympathy has been lost. In years to come, struggles between Arab nationalists and Islamists, as well as between Sunnis and Shias, will dwarf the Arab-Israeli conflict.
During 2008 we will have to assess whether the Palestinian Authority still ruling the West Bank can meet the Hamas challenge. (We already know it won’t meet the diplomatic challenge but it will take all year for most Western politicians and much of the media to discover that.)
2. The military success of the U.S. surge in Iraq. U.S. forces showed that pessimistic assessments were wrong and they were able to reduce the power of anti-government insurgents and lower the death toll in Iraq. However, this is a long way from winning the war.
During 2008 the two key questions will be whether U.S. troop withdrawals start in earnest and whether there is any political progress in bringing together Sunni and Shia communities in that country. It is hard to imagine what might change to bring about such an agreement. And even if the insurgents can kill fewer people they are likely to do enough damage to intimidate Sunnis from making peace. Still, the Iraqi government and society could grow strong enough to dispense with U.S. combat troops.
3. The Western failure to tighten sanctions substantially against Iran. It was clear in 2007 that negotiations with Tehran would fail to deter Iran from its campaign to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, France, Britain and Germany were more willing to take—or at least to talk about taking—action but due to their own hesitations, plus resistance from Russia and China, very little happened.
The reaction to these events in Iran was mixed. On one hand, there was more worry about the pressures facing that country plus its own economic woes. On the other hand, the regime expressed more confidence that the West was chicken and that time and tide was on Iran’s side.
In 2008 we will be able to see if Tehran’s drive for nuclear weapons continues without serious hindrance. Equally, it will be possible to assess whether President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is being weakened by his factional opponents—especially in the March parliamentary elections—or tightening his hold on power and holding to his reckless course.
4. U.S. policy returns to traditional stance. Whatever innovations, for better or worse, President George Bush introduced into American regional policy have vanished in 2007. He is largely back to the traditional approach as carried out by both his father and predecessor. The administration has given up on reform or backing democracy.
In 2008, a new president will be chosen but real policy shifts will take until the following year of course.
5. Israel prospers. Despite outdated talk of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s weakness, he used 2007 to rebuild his authority. Especially interesting, Israel’s economic growth has been impressive; unemployment fallen to all-time lows. Revolutionary enthusiasm and paper victories still thrill the Arab world and Iran but material gains continue to be what is important.
6. The demoralization of Lebanon. Worried that it is being abandoned by the West, forces supporting the moderate Lebanese government began to wonder if in fact Iran, Syria, and Hizballah would be able to reestablish their control over the country. A key element is the identity of the country’s next president.
In 2008, it will be important to watch how power shifts in Beirut and whether the investigation of Syrian involvement in terrorism against Lebanese opposition figures leads to an international tribunal.
7. France changes course. President Francois Sarkozy has moved France away from the nationalistic effort to undercut the United States and appease radical regimes. Sarkozy, however, has played footsie with Syria and Libya. The question for 2008: Will he implement pledges to get tougher and will French institutions follow him in changing course?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
http://www.gloriacenter.org
While 2007 didn't greatly change the Middle East compared to many of its predecessors, here are some of its significant trends which will continue to dominate the year to come. 1. Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. This is the most important single Middle East event of 2007 because it is a clear, probably irreversible, shift in the balance of power. Four decades of a movement dominated by nationalists has come to an end. Given Fatah’s continuing weaknesses it is conceivable that Hamas will take over the West Bank within a few years and marginalize its rival.
To Islamists, this is a great victory. In fact, it is a disaster for Palestinians and Arabs. It deepens divisions and destroys any real (as opposed to the silly superficial events that take up governments’ time and media space) diplomatic option for them. A negotiated resolution of the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and with it prospects for a Palestinian state, has been set back for decades. Much Western sympathy has been lost. In years to come, struggles between Arab nationalists and Islamists, as well as between Sunnis and Shias, will dwarf the Arab-Israeli conflict.
During 2008 we will have to assess whether the Palestinian Authority still ruling the West Bank can meet the Hamas challenge. (We already know it won’t meet the diplomatic challenge but it will take all year for most Western politicians and much of the media to discover that.)
2. The military success of the U.S. surge in Iraq. U.S. forces showed that pessimistic assessments were wrong and they were able to reduce the power of anti-government insurgents and lower the death toll in Iraq. However, this is a long way from winning the war.
During 2008 the two key questions will be whether U.S. troop withdrawals start in earnest and whether there is any political progress in bringing together Sunni and Shia communities in that country. It is hard to imagine what might change to bring about such an agreement. And even if the insurgents can kill fewer people they are likely to do enough damage to intimidate Sunnis from making peace. Still, the Iraqi government and society could grow strong enough to dispense with U.S. combat troops.
3. The Western failure to tighten sanctions substantially against Iran. It was clear in 2007 that negotiations with Tehran would fail to deter Iran from its campaign to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, France, Britain and Germany were more willing to take—or at least to talk about taking—action but due to their own hesitations, plus resistance from Russia and China, very little happened.
The reaction to these events in Iran was mixed. On one hand, there was more worry about the pressures facing that country plus its own economic woes. On the other hand, the regime expressed more confidence that the West was chicken and that time and tide was on Iran’s side.
In 2008 we will be able to see if Tehran’s drive for nuclear weapons continues without serious hindrance. Equally, it will be possible to assess whether President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is being weakened by his factional opponents—especially in the March parliamentary elections—or tightening his hold on power and holding to his reckless course.
4. U.S. policy returns to traditional stance. Whatever innovations, for better or worse, President George Bush introduced into American regional policy have vanished in 2007. He is largely back to the traditional approach as carried out by both his father and predecessor. The administration has given up on reform or backing democracy.
In 2008, a new president will be chosen but real policy shifts will take until the following year of course.
5. Israel prospers. Despite outdated talk of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s weakness, he used 2007 to rebuild his authority. Especially interesting, Israel’s economic growth has been impressive; unemployment fallen to all-time lows. Revolutionary enthusiasm and paper victories still thrill the Arab world and Iran but material gains continue to be what is important.
6. The demoralization of Lebanon. Worried that it is being abandoned by the West, forces supporting the moderate Lebanese government began to wonder if in fact Iran, Syria, and Hizballah would be able to reestablish their control over the country. A key element is the identity of the country’s next president.
In 2008, it will be important to watch how power shifts in Beirut and whether the investigation of Syrian involvement in terrorism against Lebanese opposition figures leads to an international tribunal.
7. France changes course. President Francois Sarkozy has moved France away from the nationalistic effort to undercut the United States and appease radical regimes. Sarkozy, however, has played footsie with Syria and Libya. The question for 2008: Will he implement pledges to get tougher and will French institutions follow him in changing course?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
http://www.gloriacenter.org
Arafat Founded Black September 1970's International Terror Group
Hana Levi Julian
A series of articles written by a long-time aide to the late Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat has confirmed that his boss founded the international terrorist organization Black September. The Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency reported Sunday that Marwan Kanafani is expected to publish the series of articles in the Egyptian Al Ahram newspaper.
Black September was responsible for the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics massacre in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered, along with one German police officer. During the effort to rescue the Israeli team, police managed to kill five of the eight terrorists, capturing the other three alive. They were later released by German authorities.
The international terror organization was also responsible for a number of other terrorist attacks in the early 1970's, including the murder of an Israeli politician in London to whom the group sent a letter bomb, Jordanian Prime Minister Wasfi Tel and two US diplomats in Khartoum, as well as the hijacking of a Belgian airliner from Vienna.
Speaking at a rally commemorating the third anniversary of Arafat's death, Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas (known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen) slammed Hamas's takeover of Gaza, but added that the rival terrorist group "cannot erase Arafat's achievements."
Abbas was appointed by Arafat to become the Palestinian Authority's first Prime Minister following the signing in 1993 of the Oslo Accords with then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize with Rabin and Peres a year later. The agreement contained a Declaration of Principles on Palestinian government and was engineered and signed in the presence of then-US President Bill Clinton, whose wife is currently running as a Democratic Party candidate for president.
Clinton later berated Arafat for turning down a deal to hand over more than 90 percent of the land restored to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, offered by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during talks at Camp David in 2000. Arafat rejected the offer because Barak refused to hand over all of Jerusalem.
Arafat co-founded the Fatah terrorist organization with Abbas in 1969, heading the group, and its parent organization, the PLO until his death in 2004, when Abbas inherited the position.
A series of articles written by a long-time aide to the late Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat has confirmed that his boss founded the international terrorist organization Black September. The Bethlehem-based Ma'an news agency reported Sunday that Marwan Kanafani is expected to publish the series of articles in the Egyptian Al Ahram newspaper.
Black September was responsible for the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics massacre in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered, along with one German police officer. During the effort to rescue the Israeli team, police managed to kill five of the eight terrorists, capturing the other three alive. They were later released by German authorities.
The international terror organization was also responsible for a number of other terrorist attacks in the early 1970's, including the murder of an Israeli politician in London to whom the group sent a letter bomb, Jordanian Prime Minister Wasfi Tel and two US diplomats in Khartoum, as well as the hijacking of a Belgian airliner from Vienna.
Speaking at a rally commemorating the third anniversary of Arafat's death, Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas (known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mazen) slammed Hamas's takeover of Gaza, but added that the rival terrorist group "cannot erase Arafat's achievements."
Abbas was appointed by Arafat to become the Palestinian Authority's first Prime Minister following the signing in 1993 of the Oslo Accords with then-Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize with Rabin and Peres a year later. The agreement contained a Declaration of Principles on Palestinian government and was engineered and signed in the presence of then-US President Bill Clinton, whose wife is currently running as a Democratic Party candidate for president.
Clinton later berated Arafat for turning down a deal to hand over more than 90 percent of the land restored to Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, offered by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during talks at Camp David in 2000. Arafat rejected the offer because Barak refused to hand over all of Jerusalem.
Arafat co-founded the Fatah terrorist organization with Abbas in 1969, heading the group, and its parent organization, the PLO until his death in 2004, when Abbas inherited the position.
U.N. Body Plans to End Investigation of Contracts
WARREN HOGE
UNITED NATIONS — The General Assembly is preparing to put an early end to an in-house panel that has exposed more than $600 million in tainted United Nations contracts and is currently investigating an additional $1 billion in suspect agreements. A budget committee of the General Assembly is scheduled to vote as early as Friday on a resolution that would force the panel to close down its operations in six months.
The effort to scuttle the panel is not a budget matter so much as a political one, and it represents the continuing suspicion developing countries have about international intervention in their affairs.
The fight has been led by one country, Singapore, which contends that a United Nations official from there has been treated unfairly in an investigation. The resolution also recommends that the panel itself be investigated for the way it has treated officials and diplomats.
In its effort to curtail the task force’s work, Singapore succeeded in winning over the powerful Group of 77, an assemblage representing the developing world that has grown over the years to 130 nations.
The threatened shutdown of what has been a penetrating inquiry comes at a time when the United Nations is still recovering from the findings of mismanagement and corruption in the oil-for-food program made by Paul A. Volcker. Mr. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, said in the 2005 report that the United Nations suffered from a “culture of inaction.”
The six-month cap would effectively finish off the investigative unit, said its director, Robert Appleton, a former assistant United States attorney in Connecticut. Mr. Appleton also served as special counsel to the inquiry into the program under which Iraq was allowed to sell some of its oil, despite United Nations sanctions, to meet the needs of its civilians.
“The investigations will obviously cease,” Mr. Appleton said Thursday, noting that the United Nations currently had no other unit “to address these matters.”
“We have five people who will leave because of the uncertainty, and it is difficult to recruit competent qualified investigators for six-month contracts,” he said. “Also, companies will delay and wait us out until we leave.”
Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the under secretary general for internal oversight services, said that letting the task force expire “would undo the great work that has been accomplished so far and expose the organization to greater risk.”
The 18-member procurement task force, seven of whose members came from the Volcker inquiry, was created in January 2006 to pursue irregularities in United Nations purchasing that had arisen in the earlier investigation.
United Nations officials have generally been supportive of the effort, noting approvingly that the investigation is one they created themselves. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said he supports full financing for the panel, though he added that ultimately the decision was the General Assembly’s.
Some of the task force’s work involves cases of graft and corruption in the developing world that many delegates do not want the United Nations looking into, but the major cases, according to investigators, involve large multi-national entities with teams of New York lawyers defending them.
Its findings that 10 significant instances of fraud and corruption had tainted contracts worth $610 million was published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.
Ms. Ahlenius told the budget committee last month that the panel’s work had been thorough and effective. She listed more than 300 accusations examined, 22 reports issued on 63 individual cases, 250 cases still open and 31 vendors disbarred as well as corruption discovered in several United Nations missions and large contracts abroad.
United States prosecutors used the task force’s work to help convict Sanjaya Bahel, a former United Nations procurement officer, on fraud and bribery charges for steering $100 million in contracts to an Indian company in exchange for cash and deals on Manhattan luxury apartments.
The current argument is not an economic one. The task force is asking the committee for $4.9 million for the whole year, an amount that would almost surely be offset by the amount of reimbursed and repatriated money the United Nations would receive from the outcomes of the task force’s work. It has already identified $25 million in misappropriated money.
The case that led Singapore to try to shut down the panel involves Andrew Toh, who has been in various forms of suspension and paid leave after questions were raised two years ago about the leasing of two Peruvian helicopters for a peacekeeping operation in East Timor.
This October, Mr. Toh was cleared of charges in that case but found negligent in not properly declaring his financial assets for 2004 and 2005 and not cooperating with the task force. Mr. Toh contends that he was denied legal counsel by the task force. The task force said that Mr. Toh was not entitled to it under United Nations practices.
Singapore contends that the panel is engaging in unfair tactics in trying to preserve itself. Kevin Cheok, the country’s deputy ambassador, complained to the budget committee on Monday.
“Anyone who voices concern about the behavior of the procurement task force has been painted as somehow being pro-corruption or anti-reform,” Mr. Cheok said.
UNITED NATIONS — The General Assembly is preparing to put an early end to an in-house panel that has exposed more than $600 million in tainted United Nations contracts and is currently investigating an additional $1 billion in suspect agreements. A budget committee of the General Assembly is scheduled to vote as early as Friday on a resolution that would force the panel to close down its operations in six months.
The effort to scuttle the panel is not a budget matter so much as a political one, and it represents the continuing suspicion developing countries have about international intervention in their affairs.
The fight has been led by one country, Singapore, which contends that a United Nations official from there has been treated unfairly in an investigation. The resolution also recommends that the panel itself be investigated for the way it has treated officials and diplomats.
In its effort to curtail the task force’s work, Singapore succeeded in winning over the powerful Group of 77, an assemblage representing the developing world that has grown over the years to 130 nations.
The threatened shutdown of what has been a penetrating inquiry comes at a time when the United Nations is still recovering from the findings of mismanagement and corruption in the oil-for-food program made by Paul A. Volcker. Mr. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, said in the 2005 report that the United Nations suffered from a “culture of inaction.”
The six-month cap would effectively finish off the investigative unit, said its director, Robert Appleton, a former assistant United States attorney in Connecticut. Mr. Appleton also served as special counsel to the inquiry into the program under which Iraq was allowed to sell some of its oil, despite United Nations sanctions, to meet the needs of its civilians.
“The investigations will obviously cease,” Mr. Appleton said Thursday, noting that the United Nations currently had no other unit “to address these matters.”
“We have five people who will leave because of the uncertainty, and it is difficult to recruit competent qualified investigators for six-month contracts,” he said. “Also, companies will delay and wait us out until we leave.”
Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the under secretary general for internal oversight services, said that letting the task force expire “would undo the great work that has been accomplished so far and expose the organization to greater risk.”
The 18-member procurement task force, seven of whose members came from the Volcker inquiry, was created in January 2006 to pursue irregularities in United Nations purchasing that had arisen in the earlier investigation.
United Nations officials have generally been supportive of the effort, noting approvingly that the investigation is one they created themselves. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said he supports full financing for the panel, though he added that ultimately the decision was the General Assembly’s.
Some of the task force’s work involves cases of graft and corruption in the developing world that many delegates do not want the United Nations looking into, but the major cases, according to investigators, involve large multi-national entities with teams of New York lawyers defending them.
Its findings that 10 significant instances of fraud and corruption had tainted contracts worth $610 million was published in The Washington Post on Tuesday.
Ms. Ahlenius told the budget committee last month that the panel’s work had been thorough and effective. She listed more than 300 accusations examined, 22 reports issued on 63 individual cases, 250 cases still open and 31 vendors disbarred as well as corruption discovered in several United Nations missions and large contracts abroad.
United States prosecutors used the task force’s work to help convict Sanjaya Bahel, a former United Nations procurement officer, on fraud and bribery charges for steering $100 million in contracts to an Indian company in exchange for cash and deals on Manhattan luxury apartments.
The current argument is not an economic one. The task force is asking the committee for $4.9 million for the whole year, an amount that would almost surely be offset by the amount of reimbursed and repatriated money the United Nations would receive from the outcomes of the task force’s work. It has already identified $25 million in misappropriated money.
The case that led Singapore to try to shut down the panel involves Andrew Toh, who has been in various forms of suspension and paid leave after questions were raised two years ago about the leasing of two Peruvian helicopters for a peacekeeping operation in East Timor.
This October, Mr. Toh was cleared of charges in that case but found negligent in not properly declaring his financial assets for 2004 and 2005 and not cooperating with the task force. Mr. Toh contends that he was denied legal counsel by the task force. The task force said that Mr. Toh was not entitled to it under United Nations practices.
Singapore contends that the panel is engaging in unfair tactics in trying to preserve itself. Kevin Cheok, the country’s deputy ambassador, complained to the budget committee on Monday.
“Anyone who voices concern about the behavior of the procurement task force has been painted as somehow being pro-corruption or anti-reform,” Mr. Cheok said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)